Baroness Neuberger

Dame Julia Babette Sarah Neuberger, DBE, having been created Baroness Neuberger, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the Baroness Prashar.

Lord Ballyedmond

Edward Enda Haughey, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Ballyedmond, of Mourne in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Henley and the Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.

Thameslink 2000

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress is presently being made with the Thameslink 2000 scheme.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Network Rail's application for a Transport and Works Act order was considered at a public inquiry between June 2000 and May 2001. A decision on the project was deferred pending the resolution of three deficiencies identified by the inspector in his report, relating to the design of the scheme in central London. Network Rail has now submitted further applications addressing these issues, which are likely to be considered by a public inquiry next year.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he please confirm that the inspector actually said in his report that the scheme would be highly beneficial to London and the regions around London, and that it would confer very large economic benefits? Will he also confirm that Network Rail has submitted, or is on the point of submitting, plans that clear up the three major deficiencies to which he referred?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the quality of Network Rail's response, although I can confirm that it set out to address those issues. The noble Lord is right: the link across London is recognised to have many benefits. Nevertheless, local people have the right to ensure that their interests are safeguarded. That is why we have planning inquiries. Network Rail is responding to those.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the funding assured for Thameslink 2000 and whatever it is? If not, is the Minister aware of the report last week stating that land values around two stations on the Jubilee Line extension—Canada Water and Bermondsey—had gone up by £2 billion? Could some of the gain at other stations on Thameslink 2000 be captured to help to fund the project?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend never lacks ingenuity. He has in the past pursued the interesting question of whether increased land values as a result of rail development could be put to further use involving the public's benefit through improved transport services. On this project, suffice it to say that the final decisions are some way away and construction is unlikely to take place before 2009. He will recognise that the resources for that are in place.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House in some detail why a second public inquiry is felt to be necessary when the first one was completed so recently? Does he not agree that it would be a pity to see a further delay to this project which would mean that it would neither be ready for the completion of the Channel Tunnel rail link nor to help with the Olympic bid?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course delays on major projects such as the one that we are discussing are to be regretted, although the noble Baroness will recognise that any major construction project through the very heart of London is bound to raise a whole range of proper interests which must be taken into account. As the noble Baroness indicated, the inspector gave the scheme general approval but identified three clear areas where there were deficiencies. It was only right, therefore, to ask Network Rail to address those areas, and, of course, that must be the subject of public approval.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be an act of courage in a political sense for any Minister in the government to refuse to accede to an inspector's demand for a public inquiry? The project, which originated in the 1980s, was given the name Thameslink 2000. Does my noble friend further agree that it was thought that that name was a little pessimistic? If we are regrettably to continue with a series of public inquiries, would it not be better to renumber the project? Can my noble friend give us any idea when the inquiry will be set up and when the project, which as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, is much needed, is likely to go ahead?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on my noble friend's first point, no Minister concerned with a project such as this lacks courage, nor does he lack wisdom. Wisdom, of course, involves taking proper account of due process with regard to a public inquiry on an issue of such great sensitivity. I can confirm that if the scheme is called in, as it almost certainly will be, a public inquiry is likely to take place around the year 2007 and construction would begin in 2008–09 and last for five years.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it will take until 1907—

Noble Lords: 2007!

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It might as well be called Thameslink 3000 while we are about it. Why will it take until 2007 for an inquiry to take place? That sounds absolutely extraordinary to me.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, significant objections were raised at the first public inquiry among which were objections relating to the Borough High Street conservation area, which has real and historical significance for local people. All noble Lords will recognise our necessary determination to improve transport in London above ground as well as under ground. We are proposing railway development above ground in the centre of London in one of the most prestigious parts of the world in terms of both wealth and historical significance. It is not therefore surprising that a wide range of interests need to be reconciled before any of these projects goes ahead.

Healthy Start Scheme

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the introduction of the Healthy Start scheme in replacement of the Welfare Food scheme.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we shall begin implementing the Healthy Start scheme as early as possible in 2005 by piloting the new scheme in a single area. In the light of that experience the scheme will be rolled out across Great Britain as soon as possible.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome that commitment to beginning the pilot scheme. Indeed, I welcome the Government's extensive consultation on the change from the Welfare Food scheme to the Healthy Start scheme. However, the Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern, particularly in the light of the COMA review which originally considered the Welfare Food scheme, that the current scheme in its current form will not adequately deal with iron and vitamin D deficiency. Does the Minister agree that there is considerable scope for improving the voucher value for the second year of life which would then cover infant formula and follow-on formula and, as in the US, enable food such as eggs, pulses and mineral-rich fortified cereals to be purchased as well?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's commendation of our consultation arrangements. With the advent of the new scheme, which is intended to start as early as possible in 2005, vouchers will be exchangeable for liquid milk, infant formula, which is fortified with iron, fresh fruit and vegetables. We intend at a later stage to make two new supplements available, one suitable for pregnant and breastfeeding women and one for children.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate that there will be a pilot scheme and that one has to see the results of that, but there has been a lot of concern that this scheme is open to fraud. Can the Minister say what measures are being taken to prevent that? Further, there is concern that children who need this formula milk will be denied it at a time when they are developing and when it is particularly crucial for brain development.

Lord Warner: My Lords, on the second point, as I said, there will be a pilot scheme which will be just that. We shall consider how the scheme is working and learn from it before rolling out the scheme nationally. Anti-fraud measures will be built into the current scheme. These include anti-fraud devices built into vouchers, mechanisms for reconciliation of vouchers issued against those reimbursed and spot checks on retailers followed by enforcement action where appropriate.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is very important that children get the right nutrients to start with, a healthy start does not necessarily mean a sterile start? It is important that they receive antibodies to build up resistance so that illnesses such as asthma, eczema and various other allergic conditions do not occur. What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage parents to ensure that their children are not necessarily brought up in a sterile environment and that they get what my granny used to call a peck of dirt before they die?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the scheme is designed to expand the range of healthy foods to people previously entitled under the Welfare Food scheme. As I said, supplements will be available. A key feature of the new scheme will be that, when people apply for it, they will be able to access consultation from health professionals.

Earl Howe: My Lords, could the Minister pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about follow-on formula in the second year of life? There is considerable concern among childcare groups that it is not a feature of the scheme as currently promulgated. Will the department undertake to look again at that?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we will pilot the scheme on the basis described, and will look at and learn from that pilot.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister consider not only the content of the follow-on formula, but the value of the voucher in the second year, which goes back down to £2.80 for that year?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are trying to run the scheme at roughly the same level as the Welfare Food scheme, as was made clear in the legislation. It is a demand-led scheme, and noble Lords know that the voucher will be £2.80, going up to £5.60 for each child up to 12 months.

Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Prime Minister's remarks on 6 July, what is their current view on what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has acknowledged that, although the Iraq Survey Group has uncovered information about programmes for the development of weapons of mass destruction, it has not found the weapons themselves. He has said that the weapons may never be found, but our overall assessment will be better informed when the Iraq Survey Group next reports.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister last week, in front of the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons, said that it was possible that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed, something that he had previously described as "palpably absurd" and against all intelligence? Does that remarkable admission not have some bearing on the legality of the Iraq war? Surely it is not enough to say, "We think that someone has WMD", or, "Someone's behaviour is consistent with having WMD", in order to suggest that something is against a UN resolution and makes the war legal.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to remember that we did not go into a military conflict in Iraq solely on the basis that the weapons of mass destruction were there. However often political analysts go into it, however often the media throw doubt over it, and however much doubt there is genuinely—I acknowledge that there is doubt, as my right honourable friend has said—the reason we went to war was that Iraq ignored or defied the United Nations Security Council resolutions over and again. Those were mandatory resolutions that demanded co-operation with UN-authorised inspectors. I remind the noble Lord that, on 8 November 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which recognised the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It was not only the United Kingdom Government who believed that to be true, but the governments of those on the UN Security Council, including France and Syria.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not outrageous that the BBC's "Panorama" purportedly prejudged the Butler inquiry last night? Is it not also a fact that Parliament will consider the allegations or otherwise on Wednesday?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not see "Panorama" last night, but I understand that it raised a number of questions about the way in which changes were made to the September 2002 dossier on weapons of mass destruction, and a number of other issues. Of course the issues will be challenged—that is right and proper in a democracy with a free media—but the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is due in two days' time to make his report on the gathering, analysis and use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq conflict. It is only right that we wait to see what his report actually says.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree, however, that the main argument—it was presented time and again in both this House and another place—for the invasion of Iraq was precisely the likelihood that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and, furthermore, that they could be used at very short notice? Does she agree that that was the sound and solid legal basis for the invasion of Iraq, and that, as long ago as 5 June this year, David Kay, then head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that it would be a delusion to suppose that that group would find any weapons of mass destruction? He said that anyone who had that view would be,
	"really delusional. There is nothing there".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is very easy with hindsight to say a whole range of things. What matters is what was believed at the time. That is why I reiterate the point about Resolution 1441, a motion passed unanimously by the Security Council—not solely by the United States and the United Kingdom, but by governments who believed that Iraq was proliferating weapons of mass destruction, including a government in the region, that of Syria.
	The noble Baroness will no doubt recall, as I do very clearly, that we were briefed just before the conflict by the chair of the JIC. We had a discussion about it on the Floor of the House, and my noble friend Lord Richard was a little exercised about it. However, I was briefed then, along with the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The noble Baroness was there for the part of the time as well. I did not believe that we were being deliberately misled, and I would never have deliberately misled this House about what we believed was the case on weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is in any different position.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is enough time for both questions.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, we all appreciate the value of wisdom in hindsight, but does my noble friend agree that, immediately prior to the war, virtually the whole world believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is there an explanation of why Saddam Hussein, if he had nothing to hide, denied the United Nations inspectors the opportunity for full inspection?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, only Saddam Hussein can answer that question. Some noble Lords may believe that such issues will be exposed during the course of his trial. However, I agree with my noble friend that all those who had intelligence forces delivering security information at the time believed that the weapons of mass destruction existed. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the legality of the war, which was based on defiance of Security Council resolutions about what the whole world believed that Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, these are obviously difficult questions for the noble Baroness to answer, so I shall ask her two helpful ones. First, do we know what happened to the chemical weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein obviously had at one time, which he used to poison a lot of people at Halabja? Secondly, has she noticed the report from the US Senate? While dismissing that details of weapons of mass destruction existed at the time of the invasion, it nevertheless says that Saddam was trying to get uranium from the Niger republic in Africa, in order to build up a nuclear weapons facility. Although that has been apologised for and denied by the intelligence agencies, it seems that there may be some truth in it after all. I appreciate that we shall discuss those matters later in the week on the Butler report, but has she anything in her brief on either of those questions?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am glad that those were helpful questions—I hate to think what the unhelpful ones might have been like. The assertion in the September 2002 dossier was based on intelligence information from a number of sources. It did not rely on the documents subsequently reported by the IAEA to have been forgeries and UK analysts did not see the forged documents until February 2003.
	As regards what happened to the chemicals such as those which were used at Halabja, so far the ISG has uncovered three areas of real interest over whether programmes were being developed. One includes the clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring. Another was documents and equipment used in scientists' homes that would have been useful for uranium enrichment. The third was plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 kilometres, which was well beyond the then legal limit of 150 kilometres.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is there not one undoubted consequence of the invasion; that it proved a weapon of mass destruction for the Israeli/Palestine road map? And was that not brutally underlined by the statement of Mr Sharon on the steps of the White House, which was not contradicted by President Bush, to the effect that the settlements in the West Bank are now there for eternity?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, much as I sympathise with the question, this is a serious Question about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the doubts raised about the intelligence concerned with them. I should be very happy to answer questions on the road map another time.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not my noble friend recall that although France and Germany certainly supported Resolution 1441, they did so on the basis that the inspectors should be given more time? With hindsight, would it not have been a good idea if that had been agreed to?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was agreed to. Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 and there was some four and a half months between then and the forces going into Iraq.

Nuclear Energy

Lord Dixon-Smith: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the remarks of the Prime Minister on 6 July concerning nuclear energy represent a change of policy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Prime Minister's remarks concerning nuclear energy were in line with the Government's policy as set out in their energy White Paper.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that remarkably brief and precise Answer. The Government have an ambitious, long-term aspiration to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because of climate change. Does the Minister agree with the acceptance by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the effect of global warming is the greatest threat faced by mankind? If so, will he accept that nuclear power has an essential role to play in the reduction of that threat?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my right honourable friend, when appearing before the Liaison Select Committee, certainly accepted global warming as a major issue confronting the world. The noble Lord will recognise that my right honourable friend identified the strategy by which the Government intended to hit the target and was confident that we would do so.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sounded like a change of policy and as they read like a change of policy, we should welcome them as a change of policy? If we cannot do that, should we not welcome them as a more radical statement than the previous policy, which was platitudinous and masquerading as an energy policy?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has been reading too many newspapers. He would be better off reading the transcript of last week's exchanges because he would recognise that my right honourable friend identified the strategies four-square with those outlined in the energy White Paper which, as he said, states that it is the Government's intention to keep the nuclear option open. That phrase actually appears in the White Paper and my right honourable friend reiterated that fact.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have read and I have in front of me the transcript of the Prime Minister's statement to the committee, in which he said:
	"I have fought long and hard, both within my party and outside, to make sure that the nuclear option is not closed off".
	Why have DTI Ministers removed from the Energy Bill the only two words which would have made that a reality? The words "including nuclear" do not appear in the government amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am having difficulty in following the purport of that remark. My right honourable friend emphasised that he had made his contribution—a very significant one—to keeping the nuclear option open. He was stating that in the context of the drafting of the White Paper. The White Paper clearly states that. Ministers have been faithful to that objective since its publication and the Energy Bill preserves exactly that position. I do not understand why the noble Lord suggests that in introducing the Energy Bill we in any way close off the nuclear option. We do not.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence has made it virtually impossible for wind generators to be applied for and set up in south-west Scotland—the best onshore site for wind—will the Government, in their nuclear option, reconsider the decommissioning of Chapelcross power station, or at least consider it as a possible site if they want to buy a new nuclear power station?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's interest in Chapelcross and the area and the points that he makes. However, he is exaggerating the issue in saying that the position of the Ministry of Defence is to block wind farm development. That is not the case. The Ministry of Defence has proper interests with regard to its coastline radar and it is important that we ensure that wind turbines do not interfere with those interests. I can assure the House that wind turbines will be constructed in Britain on land and at sea without interfering with those radar considerations. That is an important dimension of the technology which we intend to follow in order to reach our Kyoto targets.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister, in his remarks to the Liaison Select Committee also emphasised the importance of developing technologies to make carbon fuels cleaner. Does that mean that greater efforts will now be made on clean coal technology?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, quite rightly, my right honourable friend, as well briefed as ever, was well briefed on this aspect of energy policy. He indicated that of course it has a role to play in the overall provision of future energy, as outlined in the White Paper. If the noble Lord derives encouragement from the positive way in which my right honourable friend addressed that question, I am glad.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps the Minister did not read the amendment that we won, which contained the words "keep the nuclear option open" and its Commons replacement which knocked out those words.
	Did the Minister notice the words of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when speaking to my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury:
	"I will do a deal with you, Robert, we will put one in your constituency first and you can lead and I will follow"?
	Have this Government really got into the position of asking for volunteers before taking the necessary lead and telling us what their policy will be?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness doth protest too much. My right honourable friend was subject to a barrage of questions before the Liaison Select Committee chair. He made the obvious point that if a Member of Parliament advocates very strongly the advancement of nuclear energy, he should be asked whether he would want a nuclear plant sited in his constituency. That question on the subject of the location of nuclear waste was addressed to two previous Conservative Chief Whips when they were in government, and the answer in both cases was "no".

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, later this afternoon at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. a Statement being made in another place will be repeated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on the spending review.

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make the Government Actuary's Department a department subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and to make provision about such investigations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Noakes.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Finance Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) Fire and rescue authorities may constitute, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, a fire and rescue authority for the combined area of two or more existing fire and rescue authorities."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before addressing the amendment, I want to welcome the recent accolade that has been heaped upon the head of the Minister. I hope that it will see him well into the future, considering who he beat, and we endorse it for the Ministers on his side of the Chamber. We are delighted for him. However, those are probably the last kind words that we shall say today.
	This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 16—return to the subject of what we consider to be one of the fundamental flaws of the Bill; that is, the unwelcome forced regionalisation and centralisation of the fire and rescue service. The arguments have been well exercised and rehearsed both in Committee and during the earlier passage of the Bill in another place. During the Committee stage, the Minister made clear in his replies that he could not, or would not, accept our concerns. That is a shame, for our concerns remain very real. I can only hope that the Minister has had a change of heart and is alive to the potentially damaging consequences of the Bill.
	Suffice it to say that we on these Benches are still fundamentally opposed to what the Government are intending to do in the Bill as regards regionalisation. I suspect that we shall never be able to see eye to eye on this issue. But the Deputy Prime Minister's obsession with regionalisation runs amok throughout much of what his department does and throughout all the legislation that we have seen and dealt with over recent months. We see it here again in the plans for the future of the fire service. That is of course in contrast to the Bain report, whose recommendations for a reformed and improved fire service we were happy to support.
	I wonder how much of that enthusiasm is shared by other Ministers in the ODPM and in the country at large. One thing is certain—the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for regionalisation will be tested later this year in the referendums, when I have no doubt that he and the Government will receive an unequivocal answer.
	It is clear that regionalisation of the fire service will do nothing but introduce additional bureaucracy. It will not save a penny. Of course, so far as concerns the fire service, it will not save a single life or a single property. That is why we are so adamantly opposed to this part of the Bill.
	I stress that we fully support the much needed reforms and modernisation of the fire service. Indeed, we have no problem if fire authorities want to work together on a voluntary basis on, for example, procurement or any issues that they believe will improve the service they provide to the public. Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve that objective by giving fire authorities the ability to come together as they wish, removing the unwelcome dead hand of central government in forcing them to do so.
	We believe that, with their comprehensive knowledge of the local circumstances, fire authorities will be best placed to make such decisions about co-operation and partnership working. I do not think that the Minister really believes that benefits will accrue from forcing an authority—say, Wiltshire—to work in partnership with another—say, Cornwall—that may be hundreds of miles away. Indeed, perhaps the Minister could outline some of the benefits that a substantially rural authority such as Cumbria would have in working with an urban authority such as Merseyside. That is precisely what the Bill envisages.
	Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 1. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to compel authorities to combine if Clause 2(1) is amended, as my first amendment designs. Amendment No. 5 is, again, a consequential amendment, removing the unnecessary subsection that empowers the Secretary of State to consult under subsection (3)(b), which the two previous amendments would, if accepted, remove.
	Amendment No. 4 would require the agreement of authorities to any modification by the Secretary of State to a combination scheme that they themselves have proposed. As such, it reinforces an important principle of local decision-making and discretion, as opposed to the excessive hand of the centre once again being imposed without due regard to local circumstances.
	Finally, Amendment No. 16 has a similar intent to that of Amendment No. 4. It attempts to safeguard against the Secretary of State misusing his powers in regard to authorities which, under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1947 Act, come together on a voluntary basis. In Committee, the Minister asserted that this was an amendment too far. Indeed, he branded it then as a wrecking amendment. Yet the very real possibility remains that the Secretary of State could simply ignore the wishes of authorities which are already operating on a combined basis and override their wishes and day-to-day operations simply so that he could impose his own model on them as he wished.
	Amendment No. 16 would therefore ensure that each authority so affected would have to agree to any changes that the Secretary of State proposed. I do not call that a wrecking amendment; I call it a sensible and rational amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Bill seems to have cleared the Chamber immediately after Question Time even faster than do many other Bills. I hope that, as they were rushing to the door, enough noble Lords were listening to join in the noble Baroness's congratulations.
	With regard to the noble Baroness's amendments in this group, two issues seem to relate to how the criteria and so on are to be used by the Secretary of State and the combining authorities—that is, whether the Secretary of State's actions are top down and whether everything must be done to fit the Government's pattern. I am puzzled about that because, in many debates over quite a long period, the same individuals on the three Front Benches have accepted the benefits of sub-regional approaches in certain circumstances. The Government deny being centralising but, however much is said about consultation, the fact remains that the Bill is dealing with the Secretary of State's scheme to make, modify or revoke.
	As regards a pattern, and regional arrangements fitting the administrative regional offices, does it matter if combined authorities cross boundaries and cross government regional administrative areas? I am not convinced that it would matter. In any event, picking up on what was said by the noble Baroness in moving Amendment No. 1, if that were to cause problems, it is unlikely that all the authorities would want to combine in that way. What I am saying, I suppose, is that the Government should demonstrate a greater degree of trust in the common sense and practical experience that would be displayed by the authorities in question.
	On the other hand, I have to accept that in effect a veto by a single authority by not agreeing could scupper a scheme agreed to by everyone else. What the noble Baroness seems to be proposing is what would amount to, say, half a dozen authorities agreeing, persuading the Secretary of State of their case to combine, but a seventh, in what would be a natural grouping, disagreeing and so thwarting not just the proposals of central government but those of other fire authorities. So, there is something of a dilemma there.
	As regards Amendment No. 2, to which the Minister will no doubt speak when he responds, I hope that this will not sound churlish because the issue of public safety is one which I raised last time. However, I had understood Ministers in the Commons, who concentrated on this there more than we did here, to say that public safety, which is now an additional point, was part of effectiveness, which is already required by the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. It may be—I do not know—that, for reasons of effectiveness, the Government want to allow for something which would not give good economy. Are we now disaggregating those three terms in pulling out public safety as a different issue?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for her very kind words. As I said when I got the gong, I promised not to take it seriously. Nevertheless, I am very grateful for the obvious support I received from all sides of this House, given the competition.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we have tried to show that we are a listening government. So, in answering this group of amendments I want first to deal with Amendment No. 2, which is a government amendment. This was tabled in response to points put forward in debate by Members of another place and Members of this House. In effect, scrutiny of the Bill resulted in this amendment.
	We know that, as drafted, Clause 2 generated a good deal of concern, and we have heard a little of that today. It was seen as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the matter of holding an inquiry to the discretion of the Secretary of State, some people felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.
	We have not always—indeed, we did not in Committee—accepted those interpretations. The Ministers concerned with the conduct of this policy, and, indeed, me, made clear that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which a referendum is imminent. I repeat that. We have assured both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original Clause 2(2)(b) are ones of urgent public safety, in particular, if authorities were failing to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.
	But we have come to the conclusion that in view of the debates and comments made—we have had time to reflect on this—and of our stated position, it is best if the Bill is equally clear about our intentions. We have already responded to an opposition amendment in the other place by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances; for example, if suggested by the authorities themselves or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay.
	In our view, Clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses and does so by significantly departing from its original wording. Of course, on some things we have not been able to move. We have sought carefully to explain in correspondence with noble Lords and Baronesses that we believe it is right to retain a last resort power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to appoint a minority of authority members if a culture of failure needs to be challenged and turned around. We are also satisfied that the list of consultees on the face of the Bill strikes the right balance. But we have in both cases made clear our genuine intention to be transparent, proportionate and inclusive.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and the consequential Amendment No. 5, seek to prevent the Secretary of State—currently the Deputy Prime Minister—combining fire and rescue authorities in any circumstances other than those in which the authorities themselves have requested it, and only on the basis of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As we have said before, that is simple untenable.
	As we have already debated at some length in Committee, we cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State has no power to act on his own initiative. There may be, for example, independent Audit Commission evidence that improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness might result from combining authorities. Moreover, there may be an urgent need to combine authorities which have failed to deliver on a vital issue of public safety, as I have said, such as the creation of the cross-regional control rooms.
	In those circumstances, we simply cannot leave it to the authorities themselves to come along and volunteer a combination. To suggest that even then the Secretary of State should be unable to act in the interests of the public as a whole is to suggest that the Government should abandon their responsibilities for ensuring an effective emergency service and the best use of taxpayers' money. Members of Parliament would be up the wall about this if Ministers stood at this Box and in another place saying, "It's not our responsibility". They simply would not understand that.
	Amendment No. 4 even requires the initiating authorities, the fire authorities, to agree any significant modifications to an existing scheme that the Secretary of State might suggest. As we have already argued, that could lead to an extraordinary situation—I give the same example as I recall giving in Committee—in which if Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire were to propose to combine, they could veto a modification to restrict the combination to Shropshire and Staffordshire even though the people of Cheshire are due to vote in a referendum on whether they will have a north-west regional fire and rescue authority, because they are part of the north-west and the other two counties are not.
	Amendment No. 16 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State varying or revoking an existing order combining fire and rescue authorities unless they themselves have agreed to it. Again, as with the other amendments in this group, that would prevent the Secretary of State taking a wider perspective in the interests of the public as a whole. It also ignores the extensive consultation required in the Bill, including Clause 4(5)(c), which provides for consultation by anyone other than fire and rescue authorities who the Secretary of State considers to have a potential interest. The Secretary of State needs to have the freedom to act on the basis of such a wide consultation.
	The noble Baroness raised two other points. First, she asked whether it matters if combined authorities cross regional boundaries. Yes, it does. The civil resilience matters are organised on existing Government Office lines. I repeat—I know that this is irritating—that the present Government did not draw the current Government Office boundary lines. They were drawn by the previous Conservative government. I know it may be said that that was for different purposes. Certainly, it was for the administration of services, and we have not sought to change that, even though we have had debates about the boundaries in certain cases. Fire Control project and Firelink are also essentially to be organised on the Government Office lines.
	As to the question about subparagraph (b) of the Government's amendment—is public safety included in effectiveness?—we believe that public safety would generally be included in effectiveness. However, we wish to draw out public safety separately, so as to ensure that, where different elements of the three "e"s have to be balanced, the primacy of public safety is absolutely clear.
	The Government tabled Amendment No. 2 quite specifically in response to debates in both Houses—and sometimes probably the uncomfortable position Ministers have been in when trying to respond to those debates—because there seemed to be a thread of justification in the speeches. We looked at the issue, listened and tabled the government amendment, which I shall formally move at the appropriate time.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall first address the Government's amendment. It leaves out the words from the end of line 13, so that the subsection would state:
	"A scheme under this section may be made only if"—
	and then would go on—
	"it appears to the Secretary of State that, in the interests of— . . . economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or . . . public safety there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area".
	That is almost exactly what is there at the moment except for the inclusion of the words "public safety". One need take out only a few words and one gets back to exactly the same position. So, while the noble Lord has made a valid effort to try and say that this meets all sorts of objectives and objections, I am afraid that I do not see how it does as the provision is termed at the moment.
	The basis of the amendments is exactly as it was when we discussed the issue in Committee. We do not see that there should be an opportunity for a regionalised role in this. The trouble with legislation coming forth at the moment and the aspect of regionalisation in it is that the Government do not yet have any authority for regional assemblies. Legislation has been pouring out of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister over past months, always with this regionalised element, and predicated on there being a successful outcome to the regional assemblies referendum. It is all in anticipation.
	There should be far greater local control, and regionalisation is a step too far. Although we support many other aspects of the Bill, we do not support this one. I therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 156.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 13, leave out from "if" to end of line 18 and insert "it appears to the Secretary of State that, in the interests of—
	(a) economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or
	(b) public safety,
	there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 28, after "question," insert—
	"( ) all local authorities in the area affected,"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 7 and 17. The amendments would require consultation of all local authorities in the affected area, if the Secretary of State was considering combining schemes or revoking or varying an existing scheme. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confirmed the Government's commitment to the widest possible consultation. We do not question that commitment, but neither the noble Lord, nor the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, can commit future governments. As it stands, there is an obligation to consult existing authorities and other persons whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate. To pre-empt an argument to rebut mine, I accept that that action would have to be reasonable.
	The Government say that it would be more flexible not to list consultees and have referred to 52 organisations listed as consultees in the annexe to the draft framework. They say that if an organisation, whether a local authority or a voluntary organisation, is relevant and important, it will have access to the consultation process. In a letter from the Minister following Committee, for which I thank him, they also say that other organisations have an equally strong claim to be listed and that to refer to local authorities would be a slippery slope.
	I do not accept that. I suggest that local authorities are not in the same category as other organisations. The elected nature of their office makes them qualitatively different and the existing authorities have been constituted from among their membership. I do not doubt the assurances about maximum consultation, but I should like better to understand why there is no specific obligation or reference to local authorities—especially as, from what I understand the Government to be saying, they will consult local authorities anyway.
	The letter that we have received from the Minister says that the Government are less convinced that local authorities are unique in carrying such a direct mandate. Perhaps the Minister can amplify that point of view. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not prepared to amplify that. Given the oratorical skills and forceful argument of the noble Baroness, I am prepared to say that I will take the matter away and ensure that local authorities are inserted in the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what can I say, except that I should warn the Minister in future when I am going to be oratorical, so that he can have that answer prepared? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Comprehensive Spending Review

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2004 spending review. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, in the Budget, I reported that, with inflation low, Britain is now enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth on record. In this spending review, I can report that, with debt low, Britain can continue with historically high and rising investment in hospitals, schools and our public services, so combining the longest period of sustained economic growth for a generation with the longest sustained investment in public services for a generation.
	"That investment is made possible because, since 1997, our monetary policy has met our inflation target—now 2 per cent—with stability achieved. Our fiscal policy has reduced the national debt from 44 per cent of national income to 34 per cent—our national debt today being the lowest of our main competitors. Our discipline has reduced debt interest payments, which consumed, in 1997, 3.6 per cent of national income, but now cost just 2 per cent, the lowest since 1915. Unemployment, which, in 1997, cost 1 per cent of national income, now costs a third of that, just 0.3 per cent—the lowest of our major European competitors. It is because unemployment and debt interest payments now consume just 2.3 per cent of national income—half the 4.6 per cent of national income of 1997—releasing £26 billion for investment, that we are today able to allocate substantial extra resources to our front-line public services.
	"A decade ago, three-quarters of all new spending went to debt and social security costs and just a quarter of new spending could go to health, education, transport, defence, and law and order. In this spending round, three-quarters of all new spending is going to these vital front-line public services.
	"So let me tell the House the detailed figures. Holding strictly each year to the discipline of the total spending envelope, and fully affordable as we meet and will continue to meet all our fiscal rules, departmental spending, which is £279.3 billion this year, will rise to £301.9 billion next year, to £321.4 billion in 2006–07 and £340.5 billion in 2007–08.
	"So, while overall spending in 2006–08 grows by 2.8 per cent in real terms, low debt and low unemployment mean that departmental spending—spending on front-line services—will enjoy a real-terms rise, averaging over the three years of this spending review 4.2 per cent.
	"By insisting on further reform we are able to do even more to get more money to the front line and raise public investment substantially in all our priority areas.
	"It is to ensure that new resources yield the best results that we have introduced independent audit and inspection, strict three-year budgets, the devolution of funding direct to the front line and more flexibility and choice in delivery.
	"Now, following the work that the Prime Minister and I instructed more than a year ago under Sir Peter Gershon—whom I thank—and after a rigorous review of procurement, back-office services and work practices, departments are today publishing their new plans to implement efficiency agreements with the Treasury.
	"Alongside Sir Peter Gershon, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of our Civil Service and its commitment to the ethic of public service. But it is precisely because the public sector has invested £6 billion in new technology, modernising our ability to provide back-office and transactional services, that I can announce, with the detailed plans that departments are publishing for the years to 2008, a gross reduction in Civil Service posts of 84,150 to release resources from administration to invest in the front line.
	"With, in addition, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Office also having announced that they are engaged in spending review efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England, with reductions also in back-office and related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent annual efficiency savings applied to the settlement for local government in England, this allows for, in addition to the 84,150 posts, a reduction of a further 20,000.
	"Following further detailed work, the merged Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are announcing today that the gross reduction in their posts, which was provisionally set at 14,000, is now set at 16,000.
	"Because of the scale of the overall reductions, I can tell the House that in each area of the country, public servants asked to change jobs will be offered support with retraining, and we are ready to work with the workforce and their unions to provide that help.
	"Today I am also publishing department-by-department plans to relocate further Civil Service jobs out of the south-east: including 5,000 staff posts relocated from the Treasury's departments, 4,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions, 3,900 from defence and just under 1,000 each from the departments of health, education and industry. I can already announce the first sites for location, including 600 jobs from the Office for National Statistics moved to south Wales or Bristol, 250 posts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Yorkshire and just under 100 from the Department for International Development to East Kilbride. And I know that for the remainder of posts being relocated, towns and cities across the country will want to make their case.
	"I can also announce that, for all departments making future job decisions, our policy will be a presumption in favour of location in the regions. And I can tell the House that, after departments make their announcements today, the number of posts relocated to the regions will be a total of 20,030 Civil Service jobs.
	"I turn to further reforms in work practices. Eighty per cent of sickness absences in the Civil Service are self-certified, not subject to formal medical certification. And because the current arrangements for sickness leave across the Civil Service and public services are open to abuse, I am also today publishing plans which we propose to implement to curtail uncertified absences. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will report by the autumn on future management of public sector sickness absence and on measures to help those signed off for the long term back into attendance at work.
	"I can now announce that by 2008 there will be a real-terms fall in administration costs in the Department for Work and Pensions by 9 per cent, the Department of Trade and Industry by 15 per cent and the Department of Health administration by 18 per cent; that Sir Peter Gershon has laid down plans that will deliver £6 billion in procurement savings by 2008; and that total annual efficiency savings that now exceed 2.5 per cent a year will boost effective front-line service delivery by a figure higher than the original Gershon plan of, by 2008, £20 billion. And I can announce that the savings available for front-line services now amount to £21.5 billion a year. And we have also accepted Sir Peter Gershon's recommendation that to go beyond this figure would put the delivery of front-line services at risk.
	"As a result of this relocation and rationalisation, I can now make a further reform. I will also today set a new objective for the disposal of government assets for the period from now to 2010. I have asked Sir Michael Lyons to work with each department to rationalise its use of property and land and where necessary arrange sales and disposals. I can tell the House that the objective that I am setting is the overall total of £30 billion of assets sales.
	"So it is because of the three major drivers of change, the three sources of new resources that I have highlighted—a cut in debt, a cut in unemployment and now a cut in administrative posts, which are the three drivers of change releasing substantial new money for front-line services—that we can now take the next steps in a decade of rising investment for Britain and fund our priorities, the country's priorities, first, to meet the security and defence needs of the nation; secondly, to equip our economy technologically and educationally to meet the global challenge ahead; and, thirdly, to renew our public services and the public realm in this generation. And in each of these services we have agreed, in return for investment, further reform to achieve better results and a better service to the public.
	"Our first duty is the defence and protection of all citizens of our country. Since the tragic events of September 11, the needs of national security at home and action against terrorism abroad have rightly assumed a new importance.
	"Recent events demand that we strengthen not just our national security and our capacity to prevent terrorist incidents but our national resilience, our capacity to respond. And to bridge the security gap identified by the Prime Minister and the Government after September 11, we have, with the Home Secretary leading, reviewed our security needs in depth, and, for the first time, our spending review brings together all security costs and sets out the responsibilities that our national security budget must discharge.
	"Before September 11, spending on security at home was £950 million a year. Having agreed a set of reforms that modernise our border security, our counter-terrorism capabilities, our radio communication systems and our arrangements in respect of nuclear and chemical decontamination, and added 1,000 staff to our intelligence services, overall security spending will rise from £950 million in 2001 and £1.5 billion this year to reach, by 2007–08, £2.1 billion—a 10 per cent annual average real-terms rise.
	"And I can also inform the House that in place of the old system of civil defence, we are establishing and funding a new framework of civil protection with a doubling of current provision for local authority emergency planning.
	"In the last spending review, the Ministry of Defence and our Armed Forces, upon whom the defence of our country depends and to whom we owe, especially in this recent period, a debt of gratitude, were awarded the largest spending increase for 20 years. In this spending review I have matched that increase. Indeed, in this spending review the increase is higher.
	"To enable the Ministry of Defence also to modernise for the long term, and to increase its efficiency and to make the changes that are now necessary to continue to adapt technologically and strategically to the threats posed by international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the rapidly changing global environment, I propose to increase the Defence Modernisation Fund, so that over the period to 2008 it will be worth £1 billion.
	"The Secretary of State for Defence will set out the detailed allocations of the full budget for our Armed Forces, which will rise from £29.7 billion this year to £33.4 billion by 2007–08—£3.7 billion a year higher than now, which is an average annual real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent for defence. In addition, I will continue to meet the additional costs of military operations in full from the reserve, and, to meet the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided to date an additional £4.4 billion. To meet other pressures which may arise—aside from operations—in the future, we will provide the Ministry of Defence with guaranteed access to up to £300 million in 2007–08.
	"Taken together, these rises provide for a faster rate of real-terms growth in this spending round than the last and ensure the longest sustained real-terms increase in defence spending for 20 years.
	"Since September 11, international diplomacy has also assumed an even greater importance. Because of this, and the security risk faced by our Foreign Office and consular staff in overseas embassies, the Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.5 billion this year to £1.6 billion by 2007–08—a 1.4 per cent annual average real terms rise. I can also announce that, despite all our other pressures, we will not cut the British Council's budget but will increase it from £173 million this year to £197 million by 2007–08. And the budget for the BBC World Service—whose 150 million a week audience is now its largest ever—will not be cut, but will be increased from £225 million this year to, by 2007–08, £252 million—£27 million more.
	"2005 is the year where, as the Prime Minister has said, the needs of Africa will be the focus of the UK's G7 presidency as a presidency for development. As we play our part in addressing global injustices, our country's obligation is not to cut overseas aid but to increase it.
	"In 1997, Africa received just £450 million of UK bilateral aid. By 2007–08, Africa will receive £1,250 million to fund health, education and anti-poverty programmes. To promote treatments and cures for HIV/AIDS across the developing world, we will allocate in each of the next three years £450 million, £500 million and £550 million—£1.5 billion in total—to tackle this scourge.
	"So to meet all our international obligations, including recommendations from the Prime Minister's Africa Commission, the Secretary of State for International Development is announcing that we will increase his budget for aid from £3.8 billion this year to £5.3 billion by 2008—an average annual real-terms increase of 9.2 per cent.
	"Total UK aid, which fell in real terms by 23 per cent in the 1980s and early 1990s will, by 2008, have risen since 1997 by 140 per cent in real terms to nearly £6.5 billion. For every £1 of UK aid spent in 1997, we will be spending £3 by 2008, along with debt relief, raising UK official development assistance from the 0.26 per cent of national income we inherited to 0.39 per cent next year, to 0.42 per cent in 2006–07 and to 0.47 per cent in 2007–08. We wish to maintain those rates of growth in the overseas aid ratio, which on this timetable would rise beyond 0.5 per cent after 2008 and reach 0.7 per cent by 2013. I can also state that if Britain's plan—the new finance facility—is agreed internationally, the objective of 0.7 per cent could be achieved earlier, by 2008–09.
	"But, today, the humanitarian tragedy in Sudan is deeper than at the time of Live Aid—which started in Sudan 20 years ago—and we must act now. The International Development Secretary is today announcing that he is setting aside now, to be made available immediately a peace agreement is signed, emergency and other relief to address Sudan's crisis—a total over the next three years of at least £150 million more. I thank the Churches, faith groups and non-governmental organisations for their representations to date to the Treasury—more than 15,000 representations on this spending review—that we raise spending on aid and not cut it.
	"Our determination to protect and defend the people of Britain is matched by our determination to equip Britain for the global economy. The future of the British economy depends on the future of British science. The 10-year framework for science and innovation that the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Education and I are publishing today is designed to make Britain the best and most attractive location for science and innovation in the world.
	"After rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget, after a reduction of 1,010 DTI headquarters posts and further reductions in its agencies, we are able to announce substantial new funding to support science teaching in our schools, to improve salaries and stipends for graduate scientists and engineers, and to support technology transfer and university-business link ups.
	"Government funding for science will rise from £3.9 billion this year to £5 billion by 2008: £1 billion extra for science by 2008—a 5.8 per cent average annual real-terms rise representing a doubling of cash spending on science since 1997. As a result of our investment, the Wellcome Trust is today announcing a partnership with the UK Government to invest in UK research. It will match our commitment, investing over five years at least £1.5 billion.
	"With these two new investments—an extra £2.5 billion being invested for British science—and now the largest sustained increase in science spending for a generation, our objective is to raise overall spending in Britain on private and public research and development from 1.9 per cent of national income—among the lowest of our competitors—to, by 2014, 2.5 per cent of GDP—among the best of our competitors; the best guarantee of a successful economic future for our country.
	"I can tell the House that in preparing our spending review, I have consulted not just the scientific community but the CBI, business organisations, trade unions and regional organisations in every part of the UK, among which there is a remarkable agreement, a shared consensus and a determination that it is in the national interest not to cut science, transport, housing or infrastructure investment but to press ahead with sustained long-term investment.
	"To finance the detailed reforms in the rail industry and our road programme, the transport budget will rise faster than originally set out in the 10-year transport plan; from £10.4 billion this year to £12.8 billion by 2007–08—an average real-terms increase of 4.5 per cent a year. Total cash spend by the department over the spending review will be £2.9 billion more than set out in the 10-year plan. By 2008, transport spending, even after inflation, will be 60 per cent higher than in 1997. Full details of the rail reforms and the long-term transport strategy will be announced in Statements by the Transport Secretary later this month.
	"For decades our country has also seriously neglected investment in housing—in building and improvement. Forty years ago we built 400,000 homes a year. Since the early 1990s we have built only 200,000 a year. So I reject proposals that would freeze or cut investment in housing.
	"Following consultation over the Barker report and the announcement of 200,000 extra homes for the south-east, the Deputy Prime Minister will tomorrow announce the next stage in increasing the supply and affordability of housing. For England, the housing budget will rise from £5.9 billion this year to, by 2007–08, £7.2 billion; a 4.1 per cent average annual real-terms rise. It means that since 1997 cash investment in housing has more than doubled.
	"The Deputy Prime Minister will give details of a new £150 million fund to finance infrastructure around new housing developments, new money to speed up planning, and—urgently needed in our country—a 50 per cent increase in social housing by 2008 and a trebling of investment in renewal and renovation in low-demand areas in the north and the Midlands.
	"Investment, not just in science, transport and housing, but in enterprise, skills and economic development, holds the key to modern manufacturing strength and balanced economic growth in every region. To meet new and additional commitments to improve small business services, to meet adult skills needs, to support inward investment and better business-university links, to promote enterprise in disadvantaged areas, including supporting the Northern Way, and further to devolve decision-making out of Whitehall, funding will rise from £1.8 billion this year to—by 2007–08—£2.25 billion a year shared between our nine regional development agencies.
	"To meet our environmental improvement targets for 2010—a 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions, 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources and a reduced reliance on landfill—the spending review will provide additional funding for low carbon technologies; more support through recycling landfill tax revenues for businesses that are energy efficient and minimise waste; and—with additional PFI credits worth £155 million a year by 2008—support for better waste management by local councils.
	"To take forward the Haskins report on the rural economy, the budget of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will rise from £3.2 billion this year to £3.5 billion in 2007–08, an annual average real-terms rise of 1.2 per cent a year.
	"To tackle one of the biggest problems of poverty—the problem many elderly people face heating their homes—we have extended the winter fuel allowance, now worth £300 for the over-70s, introduced the pension credit now paid to 3 million pensioners and improved the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes over the last three years.
	"A further £140 million will now be set aside to enable pensioners and poor families to insulate and heat their homes. Our objective is that by 2010 we will eliminate fuel poverty among the elderly, and by 2016 to eliminate fuel poverty in its entirety.
	"I turn to public services and new public service agreements which we are publishing today for the period to 2008. They set out the performance targets and reforms expected of our public services. Since 1998, we have offered every government department three-year budgets and three-year funding. Today the Deputy Prime Minister will answer a persistent complaint of local authorities. For the first time they, too, will have three-year budgets, allowing local authorities to plan ahead. Public service agreements will also offer high-performing local authorities greater freedom and flexibility.
	"In the last four years of the last government, local authorities' grants were cut by 7 per cent. In the most recent four years of this Government, they have been raised by 23 per cent. Later the Deputy Prime Minister will set out the full details of the real terms rise in the annual grant to local authorities at an average of 2.7 per cent a year—substantially above the average settlements received by local authorities in all the last three decades.
	"I can also announce the settlements for the devolved administrations and Northern Ireland.
	"The last spending round awarded the Welsh Assembly an additional £492 million to ensure funding of Objective 1 and European Social Fund allocations for the economic regeneration of Wales. I can now announce that over and above the Barnett additions, Wales will receive even more for the coming three years, in total an additional £555 million. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive will publish full details of their funds. Overall for Wales—by 2007–08, an extra £2.5 billion. That will raise the Welsh budget from £11.1 billion to £13.6 billion, and with Objective 1 funding an annual average real-terms rise of over 4 per cent.
	"And for Scotland, by 2007–08, there will be a total of £4.2 billion more, raising the Scottish budget from £21.3 billion to £25.5 billion, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 3.5 per cent.
	"With additional funding for the EU Peace Programme, Northern Ireland will receive by 2007–08 an additional £1.2 billion a year, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 3 per cent.
	"In the Budget in 2001 we made a decision to open national museums free to the public. Since then, museums that have abolished charges have seen their attendances rise by 70 per cent, from 7.7 million a year to 13.3 million. Today, after discussions led by the Chief Secretary, I can announce an extension of free access to include all university museums.
	"And with increased funding for arts organisations, local creative arts partnerships and to revitalise regional museums, and with increased funds nationally and regionally for sports and sports facilities, the budget of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will rise from £1.4 billion this year to over £1.6 billion by 2007–08, a real-terms annual average rise of 2.3 per cent. Looking ahead, and to ensure a far better co-ordination of national sports effort and resources, Pat Carter will report on the proposal to involve both the private and public sectors in a new National Sports Foundation.
	"Today, I am announcing funding for social services, especially to improve community care for the elderly. The social services budget will increase, by 2007–08, by just under £2 billion, from £10.6 billion this year to £12.5 billion by 2007–08, representing a real-terms average annual rise of 2.7 per cent a year.
	"As a result of the spending review, the social services Secretary is also extending in every part of the country the provision of care alarm systems so that elderly and disabled people can stay in their own homes and yet have access to the support they need. An additional 160,000 of the very elderly will be able to install these care alarm systems. In total we expect that, by 2008, 1.5 million pensioners will benefit. And I can confirm that, as announced in the Budget, funds for the NHS will increase from £69 billion this year to £92 billion by 2007–08, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 7.1 per cent allocated to health that will go to and be spent through the National Health Service and by the National Health Service on patients treated free at the point of need and not to subsidise private medicine.
	"For decades this country neglected investment not only in hospitals, on social services and in schools, but also investment in our criminal justice system; in policing, in tackling anti-social behaviour and on improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. So the final obligation of this spending review is to make investments today to create in our country safer, stronger communities today and tomorrow.
	"Since 1997 there has been a 25 per cent reduction in crime, a 40 per cent reduction in domestic burglary and, for persistent young offenders, we have cut the average time from arrest to sentence from 142 to 66 days; and in contrast to a cut in police numbers of 1,100 under the last Conservative Home Secretary, there has been under this Government a rise of 11,000 policemen and women. Today this Government will not cut the budget for law and order, we will increase it substantially: first, to tackle crime; secondly, to prevent crime; and, thirdly, to reduce the fear of crime.
	"There will be new resources to tackle crime to fund the Home Secretary's decisions to create a new National Offender Management Service, bringing together prison and probation, a reformed charging and sentencing system and a new Serious Organised Crime Agency.
	"For those treated, drugs rehabilitation has succeeded in cutting reoffending by 50 per cent. So the Home and Health Secretaries will also increase the numbers in drug rehabilitation from just under 100,000 annually six years ago to 200,000 a year by 2008.
	"Just as our society must make it clear that no crime is acceptable and no criminal act excused, so our society must also acknowledge that in past decades it has not done enough to tackle the sources of crime, in particular among young people. The Home Secretary and I are agreed that we must provide new resources and that all government departments play their part in an alliance with local, voluntary and community organisations to prevent crime.
	"Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister will announce details of the Safer, Stronger Communities Fund to finance community-based solutions that, on the one hand, tackle anti-social behaviour and, on the other, build and develop the facilities and public spaces that are the bedrock of our local communities.
	"It is right to expect responsibility from young people and every community knows that the answer to young people hanging around street corners is to provide other places for them to go. Later this year, starting from three-year allocations in this spending round, the Education Secretary will publish a Green Paper on the reform of services for young people in our country. Next week, the Home Secretary will announce plans to extend the support provided to troubled teenagers at risk of reoffending.
	"The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is designed to improve the safety and quality of previously run-down neighbourhoods, to tackle the causes of crime and to address deep-seated inequalities in our country. Results now show that, following the agreed four-year programme of sustained investment, Neighbourhood Renewal Areas are seeing faster improvements in job creation and in educational attainment, and greater reductions in property crime than other parts of the country. So the Deputy Prime Minister will not abolish the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund but extend it, with a budget each year of £525 million until 2008.
	"With the Home Secretary leading, our increased support for the work of community, charitable and voluntary organisations will, in this spending round, also be focused on building stronger and more stable local communities; on engaging most of all with the young, with money for initiatives to support volunteering and voluntary community organisations, and to encourage a national framework for mentoring; and considering the recommendations of the Russell Commission on youth volunteering and proposals for bursaries to stimulate gap year engagement by young people. A £30 million a year fund is being established by the Home Secretary to support the victims of crime, not least the crimes of domestic violence.
	"But there is one further investment that the Home Secretary and I believe is essential for stronger and safer communities. There is a clear consensus among the people of this country that in order to modernise the way we tackle crime and the fear of crime, we need on our streets not only policemen and women, but also community support officers at the heart of each neighbourhood who can also patrol our streets, build links with local people and prevent anti-social behaviour.
	"So just as reform in education means that we are strengthening the effectiveness of teachers by matching them with classroom assistants, and in the NHS the effectiveness of doctors by matching them with nurse practitioners—a country proud of our public servants, investing in our public services— so too the Home Secretary proposes that reform in the criminal justice system means strengthening the effectiveness of police by matching our record number of police achieved by the Home Secretary, now 138,000 in total, with a new group of community- based officers. Scotland and Northern Ireland will make their own announcements. Today, the Home Secretary is announcing that he will fund community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, numbers that will rise year on year to 2008.
	"So to pay for these and his other responsibilities, the budget of the Home Secretary will rise from £12.7 billion this year to £14.9 billion by 2007–08, an increase of nearly £2.2 billion a year, an annual real-terms rise of 2.7 per cent. But with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate budget now flat, the rest of the Home Office budget will see an annual real-terms increase of 4 per cent. So next week the Home Secretary will announce the detail, with money now available to finance the number of police officers—now at a record level of 138,000—matched with finance available to increase neighbourhood policing, including by providing 20,000 community support officers by 2008.
	"The Budget set out the education settlement. Today I can confirm the rise in UK spending on education from £63 billion this year to £77 billion to 2007–08. That has led to the five-year strategy announced last Thursday by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education.
	"So over the whole 10-year period to 2008, in addition to policing, overall spending on education will have risen in real terms by an average of 5.2 per cent a year, transport by 5 per cent a year and health by 6.5 per cent a year—a decade of rising investment which is giving us more staff, teachers and teaching assistants, in our classrooms than ever before; more doctors and nurses in our hospitals than ever before; and more police and support officers in our communities than ever before.
	"But because of low unemployment, low debt and lower administrative costs, we have been able at the same time to fund the best defence settlement for 20 years, and in this spending review a 4 per cent average annual real-terms rise in housing, a 5.8 per cent annual real-terms rise in science and a 10 per cent a year average real-terms rises in security spending—a Britain that can succeed because of stability, hard choices and rising investment.
	"But there is one additional reform that has the potential to transform opportunity for every child and be a force for renewal in every community on which the Government want to make further progress today. While the 19th century was distinguished by the introduction of primary education for all, and the 20th century by the introduction of secondary education for all, so the early part of the 21st century should be marked by the introduction of pre-school provision for the under-fives and childcare available to all.
	"Since 1997 we have introduced Sure Start for the under-fives, nursery education for three and four year-olds and 1 million new childcare places and are meeting our target, set by the Prime Minister, to cut child poverty. Today I can announce that having achieved nursery education for every three and four year-old—and having achieved this six months ahead of plans—we will pilot, in an innovative experiment in 500 areas of the country, the extension of nursery education to two year-olds. Because it is our basic belief that every child should have the opportunities today available only to some, we will extend the Bookstart scheme and at nine months, then at 18 months and then at age two, provide free books universally for every child. For almost 2 million children a year their first introduction to learning—an investment not just in every child but an investment in the future of our country. I can inform the House that this spending review will ensure that by 2008 we can create at least 120,000 more childcare places.
	"The challenge I set today goes beyond this spending round, so we will publish in the Pre-Budget Report a plan for the years from now to 2015 to make a reality of our vision for choice for parents and high-quality provision for the under-fives. Today, as a first step, I can announce that in order to bring forward the building of new children's centres in our country I can now allocate from the capital modernisation fund an extra £100 million. So that from the 269 children's centres this year and the 1,700 proposed in the Budget, we can now move the number of children's centres we build and open between now and 2008 up to 2,500 children's centres as we advance further and faster towards our goal of a children's centre in every community and in every constituency in our country—investments made possible only because I have rejected the proposals of those who would cut spending on important services.
	"More investment not less, now and into the next Parliament. Rebuilding our communities. There is such a thing as society. Our prudence is for a purpose. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the marathon Statement made by the Chancellor in another place. I also thank him for making available to me ahead of time a copy of most of the Statement, together with the supporting documents. I say "most of the Statement" because my copy excluded the electoral "giveaways" at the end of the Statement in relation to pre-school arrangements for children. However, that will not be the most important feature of our considerations today.
	The Minister put on a brave face when repeating the Statement—he is good at that. He will have to be even better at it because the truth which lies beneath the surface of the Chancellor's economic stewardship is now becoming clear. The economy is like an iceberg; only a small part of it is visible to most people. The Chancellor constantly tells us that the economy is doing fantastically well, and he rattles off statistics about spending increases, about lifting people out of poverty, about international comparisons. In those terms, the economy does indeed seem to be doing well.
	But nine-tenths of an iceberg is below the surface and is very different. Perhaps I may tell the House of a few of the things that lie below the surface. In the past seven years Britain has slipped down the international competitiveness league table, from fourth place to fifteenth; our productivity growth rate has dropped by one-third; our savings ratio has halved; our growth rate has been the slowest in the Anglo-Saxon world; and we have the biggest trade deficit since the 17th century.
	Below the surface, the Chancellor has been crafting his economic policies according to one truly dreadful guiding principle—the fatter the Government the better. He has continued to increase public sector employment while private sector employment has been falling. He has massively increased public spending but has failed to produce better public services.
	The Chancellor orchestrates a plethora of initiatives, quangos and targets which, in turn, beget a massive bureaucracy. Civil servant numbers have increased; NHS managers are growing three times as fast as front-line staff; in education, 88,000 extra people were taken on last year, but less than one in six found their way to front line teaching.
	The Chancellor's policies for business include hammering it with 15 new regulations a day. If business seems ungrateful for his fat Finance Bills, that is because they usually do as much fiscal harm as good.
	The Chancellor appears to have had a Damascene conversion to the need to find public sector efficiency—and not before time. For example, in the NHS over the past three years we have witnessed an annual loss of efficiency of 6 per cent—and this is after the Office for National Statistics improved the output data last week, as the Prime Minister had asked it to do. We could argue all day about what that analysis does not capture, but I do not believe that even the Minister can argue that we have had quality improvement in the NHS of 6 per cent or more to counterbalance that.
	The Chancellor's conversion to public sector efficiency is welcome, but there is a big problem. He wants to make the public sector more efficient so that he can extend public spending even more. He wants the state to be even fatter. He wants the percentage of GDP taken by the state to rise. We want it to fall. The Chancellor is spending our money—taxpayers' money—inefficiently. That is the admission that lies behind this Statement, and he wants to spend more. That too will be inefficient, because the Chancellor has not yet grasped the fact that better public services will not be delivered by ever fatter government. They will be delivered only with serious reform. Fat government is not the same as fit government. The tragedy is that the Chancellor does not know the difference.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. Will he update the House on the golden rule which had only the smallest of margins at 0.1 per cent at the time of the Budget? Last week there were revisions to the borrowing figures for the previous two years totalling £6.3 billion. Will the golden rule still be met over the current cycle? Secondly, the Government's track record on delivering efficiency savings is patchy at best. For example, in 2002, the Department for Work and Pensions said that it would cut 18,000 staff, but it has so far increased its staff by 3,500. What mechanisms are there to ensure that savings are actually made? The staff cuts seem to be significant, so the mechanisms are particularly important. I will not be impressed if the Minister answers that we have the new public services agreement, given the past experience of such agreements and when, for example, the Treasury fails to come up with a way of measuring its own 2.5 per cent efficiency target.
	The Minister knows that many external commentators such as the OECD and the IFS, as well as those of us on these Benches, have been warning that the Chancellor's future path of spending will inevitably result in tax rises. There is nothing in this Statement to counter that analysis. Will the Minister assure the House that these spending plans will be delivered without the Chancellor raising taxes or national insurance over the whole period to 2007–08?
	Lastly, the Statement contained not a single reference to prudence. Will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor and his former muse are no longer an item?

Lord Newby: My Lords, any comprehensive spending review raises a number of key questions. The first is whether the total level of spending is right. Secondly, are the priorities right, and thirdly, are the projections credible? Will the Government be able to carry out their plans in practice?
	We do not have any major objection to the projected level of spending over the planning period. After all, it is significantly lower as a proportion of GDP than during the majority of the Thatcher years. However, we see a major advantage in keeping spending at broadly the same level of GDP over the medium term. Our criticism of this Chancellor in relation to public spending is that he has gone from famine to feast. During the first Parliament, there was a 1.6 per cent average increase—approximately half the level of the growth in the economy. During this Parliament, there has been an average increase of 4 per cent in real terms, which is almost twice the level of growth. It is no wonder that a number of elements of indigestion are apparent in the public services.
	Are the priorities right? We would have done some things differently. We believe that the Government could have made more progress in some of their objectives with which we agree by cutting something else. Although we obviously applaud the increase in police funding, we believe that it could be increased further in the medium term by scrapping the Home Secretary's £3 billion ID card scheme. We believe that the pace at which the improvement in Sure Start-style child centres is advancing could be increased if the Government scrapped their completely wasteful and ineffective baby bond scheme. Thirdly, we want to see a generous non-means-tested pension. We would scrap industrial and other subsidies to pay for it.
	We would also put more impetus into the relocation of government departments leaving London. One of the failures of this Government's economic policy making is that the gap in growth and wealth between the north and south has increased during their tenure in office. The Government could do more about that. For example, how many members of Treasury staff as opposed to Treasury department staff will leave London as a result of the Government's plans? Also, will the Government institute a ban on any new quangos establishing themselves in the south? In recent months, several new bodies such as the pension protection agency, have announced that they will be located in southern England, when they could just as well have been located in the north.
	Will the Government's plans work? We have a number of major reservations. It is clear that much less red tape and central control is required in education and health, but the Government's current policy is a complete muddle in those areas. They have abandoned some targets, but as far as education is concerned, they seem intent on bringing more power to the centre and reducing the role of the LEA, which seems a retrograde step.
	The great increase in capital spending in health and education appears to be leading to significant capacity problems. On one hand there is now a shortage of contractors bidding for PFI work, and on the other, some contractors—of which Jarvis is the most notable exception—have clearly bitten off more than they can chew and may well find themselves going bust. Are the Government confident that they can meet their school and hospital building programmes?
	Finally, the assumption of productivity growth of 2.5 per cent is impressive, but we are extremely cautious and worried about whether that can be met. Unfortunately, the Treasury apparently does not believe in it. When asked about how it would meet its 2 per cent target, an official replied that it did not apply to the Treasury,
	"because it has not been possible to measure efficiency for the whole of the Treasury in these terms".
	If the Treasury will not meet its target, why should other government departments, and why should other permanent secretaries and their staff take lessons from the Chancellor on efficiency savings that he is not even prepared to contemplate himself?
	The challenge that the Government face is not only to set the right priorities, but to deliver them. On the basis of today's Statement, we remain unconvinced that they will do so.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to this spending review, especially since they have been scratching around at the margins rather than even attempting to attack the Chancellor's record or criticise the fundamental features of this spending review. The fact of the matter is—and this has not been challenged either by the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats—that this Chancellor has been outstandingly successful in the past seven years in economic growth and in social reform. When and if I hear criticisms of the fundamental achievements of this Government, I will know on what basis the parties opposite intend to lose the election—because that is clearly their objective from the responses that we have had this afternoon.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made several comments about the comparison between us and other major industrialised countries. I notice that she shifts her ground occasionally when it is not convenient to talk about other major industrialised countries—she suddenly compares our growth with the Anglo-Saxon world to ensure that our achievements do not resonate as they should. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate argument.
	The only point that I make, having stood at the Dispatch Box and done this for the past seven years, is that I have been listening to all these prophets of doom. I have been listening to everybody who has said that the Chancellor was riding for a fall and that his estimates of economic growth and the prospects for improvements in our public services were grossly exaggerated. Every year I have waited for noble Lords opposite to say, "I did say this last year or the year before, and I am sorry, but I was wrong", because they always have been wrong. That has been the case as much, if not more, for the Liberal Democrats as it has been for the Conservative Party.
	I am also sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, thought fit to revive the old canard of public sector productivity. Of course it is a challenge for all of us to ensure that public spending on the things which the people of this country want goes towards improving public services. That is undoubtedly the correct criterion by which to judge our spending plans. But unfortunately, that argument is muddied by the entirely false argument of public sector service productivity, which seeks to assess public service productivity in comparison with private sector productivity in a sphere where it is not possible to measure outputs in the same way.
	Using the measurements which, alas, are still produced by the Office for National Statistics, a decrease in school class sizes of 100 per cent—educationalists and most people would agree that halving class sizes is thoroughly desirable—would decrease public sector productivity. That is the nature of the way in which it has been calculated. That is why we are profoundly dissatisfied with that sort of measure and have asked Sir Tony Atkinson to report, as he will do very shortly, on how to improve the answer to the legitimate question: is public spending resulting in an improvement in public services? Unfortunately, the queries which have been raised this afternoon do not go any way towards denting the Government's arguments.
	I like the new phrase "fat government". I have always liked that sort of phrase. The Republicans in the United States have always talked about wanting small government and big people. This is not a comment on obesity, either in the United States or here, but the sad truth is that pursuing that ideal of small government regardless of the kind of services which people want and need in this country leads to what we had when we took office in 1997—decades of underinvestment in our public services, which has been the bane of our lives.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we have gone from famine to feast in our public spending policies. Yes, it took at least two years for us to get ourselves up off our knees as a result of what 18 years of Conservative government did to our public services, but that is what we had to do and that is the way in which we had to do it. I am afraid that there is not any alternative to it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had some specific questions which I shall try to answer. First, she asked whether it is our expectation that we will adhere to the golden rule. Yes—taking the most cautious assumptions, our view is that public sector net debt, if it rises at all over the next few years, will rise to a figure of approximately 36.5 per cent, compared with the golden rule figure of 40 per cent. That is within the golden rule. There are all sorts of arguments about definitions, but that is what we expect.
	The noble Baroness asked about our track record on efficiency savings and whether we are putting into place mechanisms to ensure that the savings actually take place. We have entrusted Mr John Oughton with the responsibility of monitoring these improvements in our achievements and of our achievement of the public service agreement framework. In doing so, we have very considerably increased the flexibility of public service organisations to adhere to their targets without excessive targets being set by us. For example, we have reduced the number of targets from around 600 in the 1998 spending review to 110 now, with the result that there is only, on average, one target for every £5 billion of expenditure. I do not think that we can be accused of excessive centralisation in that respect.
	The noble Baroness asked about our assumptions on tax rises. These are set out in the Budget and in the Pre-Budget Report rather than the spending review, but there is no assumption of tax rises in what is being proposed in the spending review.
	Finally, the noble Baroness asked what happens to prudence. She may have been preparing to rise to her feet when I repeated what were almost the last words of the Statement:
	"Our prudence is for a purpose".
	It is indeed for a purpose, and this is the purpose becoming evident.
	I was very interested in the priorities of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If he goes before the electorate with different priorities which consist of, but do not include, scrapping ID cards, child tax credits and industrial support schemes, having greater relocation than is at present proposed and a ban on new quangos in London, I doubt whether he will hit the spot. I very much doubt whether such modest changes as his party wants will resonate with people who really are concerned, as we are, with a healthy, well educated nation with a growing and successful economy which is fair to all.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. Before I do, I congratulate him on a 38-minute Statement, which was delivered at the rapid rate of a mile a minute. So it was a bit more than the marathon that my noble friend referred to, as that is only 26 miles.
	We have had the real-terms average annual rises for every single activity in which the Government have their fingers. It is extraordinary to think that agriculture, the bedrock of our country, which is going through such troubled times, gets a real-terms average annual rise of the lowest of the lot at 1.2 per cent. This is at a time of great change, when the farming community, and the rural community in general, faces huge crises of one sort or another. To compare it with other figures, science gets 5 per cent, arts, sports and media get 2.3 per cent and health gets 7.1 per cent. That is all great, but I wonder about agriculture.
	Secondly, it is rather facile of the Minister to say that he does not deal with the Budget, that it is a pre-Budget speech, that we must look at what the income will be and that we can spend, spend, spend during the spending review. When he says that there are no tax rises, how will he fund all this expenditure, and on what national growth rate is it predicated?
	My third question is about the logistics of people on the Back Benches dealing with a Statement such as this. We have had 38 minutes of a Statement, giving a massive amount of figures. If we had been given a copy of it as the Minister rose to his feet, we would have been able to highlight the things we wanted to bring to his attention. It has been so difficult. I have scribbled on two sides of A4, and can hardly read my own figures. The Front Bench spokesmen were, quite rightly, given the Statement, but I think that in future the House authorities should consider the possibility of dealing with this very complex Statement by handing out a copy at the time it is made so that we can contribute.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked three questions, which I shall attempt to answer. First, she picked out agriculture from the figures that were given of real terms annual rises. It is not possible to separate agriculture from the other responsibilities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the noble Baroness is right in saying that for that department as a whole, the average annual growth rate in real expenditure—there is no cut involved here—is 1.2 per cent. How that is divided between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a matter for the Secretary of State, and she will no doubt make an appropriate announcement in due course.
	The noble Baroness criticised me for relying on the Budget and the Pre-Budget Report for making statements about funding. That is the way that it is done, and the way that it has always been done, except that this Government now make estimates of revenue receipts and economic growth twice a year, instead of only once a year as used to be the case. We do not interpolate new estimates at the time of a spending review, and the noble Baroness will have to wait until the Pre-Budget Report before we make our next assessment of revenue receipts, capital receipts, and national growth rates. Under criticism from the Benches opposite over many years, including at the time of the last Pre-Budget Report, government estimates have been a good deal better than those not just of noble Lords opposite and of the opposition parties, but of the consensus of independent forecasters.
	On the third point, I entirely sympathise, having done this in opposition for 14 years, about the desire of the noble Baroness for noble Lords to be given copies of the speech. If I tell her that I did not receive the final copy of the speech until after 3 o'clock, perhaps the sympathy will be shared.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, if one is hesitant to welcome some aspects of this review, it is because one has a feeling that the Chancellor is counting his chickens before they have hatched. Of the £21.5 billion of target efficiency savings to be achieved over three years, how much is being spent before it is achieved? My impression is almost all of it. What about the £30 billion, if I heard correctly, of sales that are anticipated? Does all that go into public expenditure as well? What percentage of GDP will public expenditure have achieved by the end of this period?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord's hesitation in welcoming the spending review. After all, from the Benches on which he sits it would be most unusual to welcome a government of the opposite political persuasion, but I take it that his hesitation rather than his determination to oppose it is because he recognises that we have got it pretty right, and we have been getting it pretty right for rather a long time now. He has my sympathy, and he has my admiration for the way in which he is separating himself so delicately from the point of view of some of his colleagues.
	None of the £21.5 billion that is to be saved from Gershon is to be spent in advance. The savings are over a period of three to four years. I know that the noble Lord has not yet had an opportunity to do so, but if he reads the White Paper he will see that, if anything, the expenditure is backloaded rather than frontloaded. In other words, in what some people may think to be an election year, there are fewer increases in public spending than will be possible in later years.
	Our estimate is that by 2007–08 public spending as a proportion of GDP will be 42 per cent. Let those who wish it to be lower say what cuts they propose.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister recall the late Iain Macleod's rule of Budgets, that the first impressions are nearly always wrong? That certainly applies to expenditure reviews as well. This Statement has been made on a Monday, which might be considered unusual, except that it means that the Chancellor makes the Statement at 3.30 p.m. and not at 12.30 p.m. as it would be at another time in the week. Other Members may have noticed that this gives commentators the least possible time before their deadlines to spot the gaps. It is impossible to respond to a Statement of this length.
	It might be helpful if in the future in the midst of the Chancellor's bombast, which we notice on such occasions, we were reminded of last year's speech on each occasion, and what actually happened; or that of two years ago, and what actually happened. The Chancellor is always moving on in the hope that people do not remember what he said before.
	In that connection, I do not think that the Minister replied to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Will he give an assurance that these substantial increases in expenditure do not involve any increase in either direct taxation or national insurance over the planned period?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said, I sympathise with those who are worried about the timing of these Statements. It has always been a difficulty for me. I am prone to a conspiratorial view of history, so I have a lot of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord King. I very much doubt that it has been as finely calculated as that.
	The truth of the matter is that the spending review Statements are always difficult to interpret, not because there is anything concealed or deceitful in the way in which they are presented, but because they give the envelope of spending for each department. It is then up to each department to decide how to allocate the money that is available for their different purposes. Therefore, the announcements about, for example, a particular road scheme, or hospital, or university, will have to be made after the Chancellor's Statement, because he cannot include them all.
	The consolation that I offer to the noble Lord is that there is less in the Statement that is a surprise than might otherwise be thought to be the case. The overall envelope for public spending—which is the new cant phrase—was set out in the Budget this year. Some of the major departments' expenditure, for example, on health, education and international development, was set down before this public spending Statement.
	Although the Statement confirms and gives the reasons for our ability to continue to invest in our public services, it is very much dependent on the overall figures that were set out in the Budget earlier this year. I am sorry, what else did the noble Lord ask about?

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, tax.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. My Lords, I gave an assurance that the assumptions behind this spending review were the same as the assumptions in the previous Budget: in other words, no change in taxation as a whole. The noble Lord is asking me to be specific about individual types of taxation. I do not think that it would be appropriate in the context of a spending review.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Statement said that the pension credit is now paid to 3 million pensioners. How many pensioners who are entitled to the credit are not being paid it, and what would it cost if they were? It is said that the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions are to be cut by 30,000. Why were they employed in the first place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the first question. It does not arise from the spending review. Well, the amount that is being spent arises. However, there will be opportunities in debates on the policies of the Department for Work and Pensions for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to raise that matter. If I had it before me, I would undoubtedly have been able to give it to him.
	Having said that, I have forgotten the second question.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, there are 30,000 jobs to be cut from the Department for Work and Pensions. Why were those people employed in the first place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions, as the noble Lord knows better than most in this House, has had a programme of information technology projects which has not perhaps been of the happiest. Some of them have been over-budget and some of them have been delayed. During the period in which it has not been possible for them to be in operation, a great deal of clerical work has been necessary. I am glad to say that, after delays, many of those projects are now coming on-stream, and it will be possible for the work to be done other than in old-fashioned clerical ways.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord King, I agree that it would be very nice to have a little more time to read a Statement before it is made. Nevertheless, on a first reading I must say that the Statement does not look too bad to me. I congratulate the Government particularly on the progress that they intend to make towards attaining the 7 per cent target for overseas aid. That is very necessary indeed.
	I am particularly pleased about the £1,250 million that is to be allocated to Africa by 2007. Is that bilateral aid, or is a third of it going through the mincer of the European Union, so that the EU rather than the British Government will decide some of the priorities? There is a good deal of concern about the way in which the European Union handles overseas aid. I hope that the aid will be direct aid to Africa, and that we shall have every say in the priorities.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, from our sister party, for his congratulations on the Government's economic policy. Perhaps it might have come well from noble Lords who are still members of the Labour Party—but there we are.
	The noble Lord is right in saying that the Chancellor has been outstanding in promoting overseas development aid. He has already increased it substantially, has now proposed to increase it to 2008, and—unusually for him—is prepared to say that if the same policies were pursued for another five years we would reach the United Nations target of 7 per cent of gross domestic product.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is 0.7 per cent.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it is 0.7 per cent. Well, damned dots!
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in saying that we are not in control of all our overseas budget and that some of it goes through the European Union. It is a matter of record that the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor have expressed concern about the way in which the European budget is spent. We are determined that as much as possible of our overseas aid budget should be spent in the areas of most need, in the very poorest countries and on the most urgent needs of water, health and primary education. To that extent, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I apologise for arriving in the Chamber late, after the Statement had commenced. I also apologise to the House for unwittingly leaving my mobile telephone on.
	On behalf of Peers on the Labour Benches, I embrace the review with enthusiasm and with great acclamation for the efforts undertaken by the Chancellor. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, was also like myself late arriving in the Chamber for the Statement. It has been said that first impressions can often be wrong. I wonder, in that light, whether the Minister would be prepared to repeat the comments that he made earlier, that invariably the initial reaction of the Opposition to the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statements and on the comprehensive spending reviews has been wrong, as has the initial reaction from independent economic advisers, and the Chancellor has been proved right. Would the Minister care to repeat that so that everybody understands it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately I have civil servants who report to me and brief me, so I cannot do the kind of political activity that I would wish to be done and which I am sure could be done. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brooke is right that I could not only assert but prove, if I had the resources to do so, that the Chancellor has, in every one of the Budgets that he has produced, been more accurate in his forecasts than either the opposition parties or independent forecasters. Someday I shall get to prove it.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister knows that I have always been prepared to pay tribute to the Chancellor for the fundamental approach that he has taken to economic policy, particularly in the early years of the two governments over which he has presided. But I have always pointed out that that approach has been based on the sound economic Thatcherite policies to which he has stuck pretty well.
	Does the Minister recognise that to propose increases in public spending of £61 billion, which is 5.5 per cent of the current GDP of £1.1 trillion, is a very big increase? The source of money for such an increase is very doubtful, because the Chancellor has already had the great savings from unemployment reduction, and the reduction in debt payments. It is unlikely that unemployment will go down further, and interest rates are going up rather than down. When the Chancellor says that the increase is based on savings on people—apart from the fact that the number of people involved in government has increased hugely under the stewardship of Mr Blair—does he recognise that it is likely that the tide is coming in faster than he can bail out the pools on the beach?
	My final question is quite simple. If it comes to a choice between cutting spending and increasing taxes, which is the Chancellor likely to do?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I agreed with my noble friend Lord Brooke that the Chancellor had been a better forecaster than independent forecasters or the opposition Front Benches, I can make a modest exception for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. At some risk of heresy, he has expressed support for much that the Chancellor has done over a period of seven years, and I pay tribute to his independence of mind in that regard. But now he is joining the doomsayers—and we shall see who is right.
	Noble Lords should consider our track record and the arguments that the Chancellor deployed at the beginning of his speech, which I believe to be particularly significant, about what we have saved by our reduction in debt interest and payments for failure—in other words, for unemployment. When the noble Lord has an opportunity, which I know that he has not yet had, to read the White Paper in detail—which I also know, knowing him, that he will do—I hope that he will find that the figures are not only soundly based but extremely cautiously based. I would be glad to discuss those points with him. As was always the case, the assumptions made on public expenditure have been audited by the National Audit Office and, when appropriate, by the Audit Commission.
	I take slight issue with the noble Lord when he says that all the savings that we are proposing are savings on people, exactly for the reason that I have just given—that it is the benign result of years of investment in public services. That increase in capital expenditure in public services has made it possible to have the three-year spending review that I have already commended to the House.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
	"and shall only proceed with the proposed scheme, variation or revocation as the case may be if the inquiry concludes that the making of the scheme, variation or revocation is in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service or services concerned."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 we return to the issue of regionalisation and the powers of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 ensure that the power of the Secretary of State to initiate a scheme for creating combined fire authorities or to revoke or vary such a scheme—in effect his power to intervene to pursue a regionalist agenda at the expense of what is best for the public—would be limited by the findings of an inquiry that would focus only on whether the plans would deliver greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness to the fire and rescue authority in question.
	In Committee, the Minister mentioned that the Government had already given ground by agreeing to hold an inquiry as the norm, were the Secretary of State to decide to use his powers under subsection (3)(b). We welcomed that development. As the Minister pointed out, were an inquiry to conclude that economy, efficiency and effectiveness were not best served by a particular combination or by a proposed change to a combination, the Secretary of State would be obliged to have regard to its findings. We do not believe that that assurance goes far enough. Having regard to the findings of an inquiry is not the same as accepting the findings of an inquiry.
	I stress again that the fire and rescue services and the public will need to be assured that the modernisation or bringing together of the service is not premised on regionalisation and centralisation but on delivering improvements and on the best possible service structure. They need to know that there is a process that protects the public interest. An inquiry that finds that the Secretary of State's plans would not promote the greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire services cannot be ignored. It would need to be taken into account and accepted. Only an inquiry can decide whether the Secretary of State's plans are genuinely in the public interest or whether they have no operational merit.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with a stronger assurance that that will be the situation than he was able to give us in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will probably never satisfy the noble Baroness on the issue of the Secretary of State's powers. There will be a division between us because, as she clearly indicated, the amendment seeks to limit the Secretary of State's scope for action. The inquiry is an important element and to have regard to it means that it cannot be ignored. I cannot put into the Bill words that are not there.
	We do not wish to fetter the Secretary of State. As I have repeatedly said, the Secretary of State must act reasonably at all times. He cannot act on a whim or a hunch or out of prejudice. As a Minister, he has to act reasonably or we can be called to account. Therefore, these amendments are wholly unnecessary.
	The Secretary of State can make a scheme only if he can satisfy himself—as I said, that is not a personal satisfaction—that economy, efficiency and effectiveness—or, following Amendment No. 2, public safety—are best served by a particular combination or by a change to one. In deciding whether there are grounds to make a combination, the Secretary of State would have to take the findings of the inquiry into account. He cannot ignore an inquiry. That is the reality. He must give the findings great weight. One does not have an inquiry unless one is going to take account of it. That is the situation in this case.
	We do not believe that the Secretary of State's discretion should be fettered. This has been the theme throughout the Bill. There might be circumstances in which an inquiry concludes that a combination scheme, or the variation or revocation of an existing scheme, is justified on grounds of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but the Secretary of State, taking a wider view, has sound reasons, which he would have to explain, to disagree with the findings of the inquiry; for example, on the basis of the overriding needs of public safety. I cannot put forward examples to explain but because it is not possible for the Secretary of State to act irrationally and unreasonably he would have to give great weight to the report of an inquiry, which will be a matter of public record.
	We need to have the possibility of the Secretary of State exercising his discretion. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we took that away from him. I know that that will not satisfy the noble Baroness but a need for the Secretary of State to have regard to an inquiry also means that he cannot ignore it.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am tempted to say that under other legislation inspectors' reports become binding. We do not seem to be in the same position here. I thought that that was a unique situation. We hoped that we might move it into other legislation. That was what the Government were anticipating. This is all about the revocation of a scheme. It would be more appropriate if the Government had to do more than have regard to or take account of, as I think the Minister put it, such an inquiry. I hear what the Minister says and I do not intend to pursue this issue further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) All members of a combined fire and rescue authority constituted under a scheme under section 2 shall be elected members of a constituent authority."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the powers of appointment to the newly formed combined fire authorities. We still have serious concerns about this part of the Bill allowing, as it does, for the Secretary of State to appoint a significant minority of members to each authority. While protesting that fire and rescue authorities remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure but are also taking powers to appoint members. We cannot support this step.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, attempted to explain that such a power for the Secretary of State was needed as a reserve power in case fire and rescue authorities did not nominate people of what the Secretary of State considered to be of sufficiently high calibre. This would apply, apparently, where capacity was needed to deliver modernisation, bringing in wider experience and knowledge that the authority apparently lacked. That was the explanation. This is as patronising as it is tenuous. It is demeaning to the professional authorities that support the fire authorities to say that they need members appointed by the Secretary of State to provide so-called outside expertise. It is beyond what already happens in London where, as I understand it, the whole authority consists of elected members appointed by the Greater London Authority and the boroughs.
	This is not a reserve power; it will be used from day one of the newly formed authorities. The Government do not seem to be able to trust locally elected representatives to get on and run their local services. Amendment No. 9 would guarantee that all members appointed to a combined fire and rescue authority would be elected members of one of the constituent authorities, ensuring local representation and accountability.
	In Committee, I explained our opposition to the Secretary of State having a role in appointing members to the new authorities. Amendment No. 10 therefore seeks to curtail the Secretary of State's involvement. Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are consequential amendments, drafted to deal with changes to the Bill that would be required if Amendment No. 10 is, as I anticipate, accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State's powers were not reserved. I make it absolutely clear that the powers would be used only in a last resort. My speaking notes do not say, "For 'last resort' read 'reserve'". The authority of the Secretary of State is involved. We have made it clear that we do not seek such powers lightly. We have given assurances that the Secretary of State's powers of appointment would be used only in a "last resort" scenario, where authorities have critically failed to deliver the services required of them. In effect, a reserved power is involved.
	To limit appointments to those who are responsible for this failure—that is the implication—is, as we have previously said, contradictory and counter-productive. Appointment of non-elected members by the Secretary of State will be for no other purpose than to bring into the new authorities the necessary leadership and expertise that they have shown they lacked, whether this be managerial or financial or involves another role that is essential to service delivery.
	Members will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their ability to bring these qualities to the new authority. Such appointments will be made sparingly, responsibly and for the limited purposes which we have described. The independence of appointees from the Government will be guaranteed by open process and in accordance with the Nolan principles.
	I cannot spell out the position any more clearly than that. This approach does not involve the Secretary of State riding roughshod over local authority representatives on fire services authorities; they will have had every opportunity to have sorted out any problems before the powers are used. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that the use of these powers will not be the norm; they will be used simply as a last resort.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the provisions do not say that. I know that the Minister tried to explain that the powers would be used only as a last resort but that is not what Clause 3(3)(a) states. That subsection states:
	"In particular, a scheme . . . may make provision about . . . the composition of the combined authority (including provision for the appointment of members by the existing authorities or by the Secretary of State)".
	The authorities are made up either of elected members, which is what we seek to ensure, or of appointed members. There is a real confusion in subsection (3)(c) about who will be on the authorities and what their status will be.
	The Government have a great tendency, with regard to appointed members on all sorts of bodies, to try to steer what those appointed members should be doing. We must remember that behind all those authorities there is usually a competent Civil Service. Members of those authorities are there to guide and steer, usually in a political way, how the authority will work.
	We cannot have a situation in which a scheme is put forward by combined authorities when there is, as I understand it, no track record of how they have operated. The supposition is that they—or their members—are hopeless before they start. If a scheme were put forward on behalf of all elected members and the Secretary of State threw up his hands and said, "No, I cannot have Bloggs, Smith or Jones because they are not competent in the relevant area", that would cause tremendous confusion from the outset. I am afraid that I really am not satisfied by the Minister's response.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should clarify the situation. There are a couple of points that I did not make earlier but I should have done. The amendment requires that all members appointed by their constituent authorities should be elected members of those authorities. In practice, that has always been the case, and it is set out that it should be in the orders establishing the combined authorities. Those orders will make it clear that the norm involves the elected members of the constituent authorities. We expect that to continue to be the case, but we believe that it is not a matter for primary legislation. As I said, these are last resort powers. The norm will be that the fire authorities will consist of elected members from the constituent authorities. That will be clear in the orders setting up the combined authorities. I am sorry if I did not make that clear earlier; it is my fault for turning over more than one page of my notes at a time.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister give us an example of what might not be the norm?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I refer to a combined authority—which could be set up in any case in the normal way—that failed for whatever reason. If it was a failure there would be a report from the Audit Commission, the inspectorate or some other body that made it patently clear that the authority was not working. It would have every opportunity to put itself right and if it failed to do so the Secretary of State would use the powers as a last resort.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Clause 3 is entitled,
	"Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary".
	By definition, such an authority has therefore not operated in the past; it will be a new body. It cannot have a track record and the Secretary of State can have no experience of what the authority is like in order to make a judgment about appointed members. The situation may be as the Minister described it but the clause does not state that. I want to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 130.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) In its application to Wales, this section has effect with the omission of the words "or by the Secretary of State" in subsection (3)(a) and the omission of subsections (4) and (5)."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, it is clearly evident that this amendment has a degree of cross-party support, at least from the opposition Benches. We can but hope that some of this understanding rubs off on to noble Lords opposite.
	Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the power for the National Assembly to appoint some of the members of combined fire authorities in Wales, leaving that power in the hands of the county and county borough councils. This issue was debated at some length in Committee. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, replied that the Assembly should have such a power because it is being given to the Secretary of State in England. He went on to mention that the Assembly was under no obligation actually to use the power. However, the case for giving such powers to the Assembly fails to take into account the different legal framework in Wales.
	Under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 the Assembly has to have a scheme that sets out how it proposes,
	"in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales".
	Perhaps we should have a similar rule here.
	My argument is that the creation of a new power for the Assembly to appoint members of combined fire authorities is inconsistent with the Assembly's local government scheme. Such a power weakens local government. It would potentially diminish local government's accountability and autonomy. Furthermore, I am not aware of any policy document from the Welsh Assembly that advocates or justifies the creation of a power for it to appoint fire authority members. This provision in the Bill has not been appropriately foreshadowed, which has denied Welsh local government and the Welsh fire authorities the chance to express views on the matter before the Bill was introduced. The need for this power in Wales should be tested and explained before the House agrees that it is required. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the points that he made with regard to the position in Wales referred to in Amendment No. 12 to Clause 3.
	As I understand it, as the Bill stands the Assembly will have a similar right to the Secretary of State in England to nominate up to half the members of a combined fire and rescue authority. This will obviously be at the expense of local authority nominations. This invasive power has caused some concern among local authorities. As my noble friend pointed out, they say that it runs contrary to the obligation on the Assembly under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act,
	"in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales".
	I admit that the local authority nominees have a special position under subsection (5), in that a precept must be approved by a majority of them. However, in a sense that only begs the question why should there be any Assembly nominees at all on the combined authority.
	I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, refer to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or, I assume, the Assembly make such appointments, and I still find myself somewhat confused on the precise circumstances in which either exercises their power. My noble friend Lady Hanham said that the power was likely to be exercised from day one.
	It is suspected that there is a centralist tendency in the Assembly. We have seen that in relation to not only this Bill but others, such as the Higher Education Bill and the draft transport Bill to name but two. There is a reluctance to devolve beyond the devolved body itself—to other authorities, including local authorities. As my noble friend said, there is no mention of the proposed power being given to the Assembly in last year's White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, or in any other policy document emanating from the Welsh Assembly Government. The proposal has come out of the blue, without consultation or anyone being given a chance to comment.
	The Assembly has confirmed that it has no plans to make changes to the three existing authorities, but that is irrelevant to the issue before us. Why has the Assembly got to have the power to nominate? Is it to overcome local authority opposition to a new combined authority? The reasoning behind it should at least be explained, along with the encroachment on what is, after all, traditional local authority territory.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I raised the matter in Committee, but I do not think that I need add anything to the debate.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond. I do not claim to be speaking for Wales, but I am certainly speaking for the Assembly. No one is arguing with the fact that the National Assembly for Wales has not sought to exclude the power, and we have not sought to impose it. The Bill has obviously been drafted in full consultation with the National Assembly, and we take the view that the Assembly should in the end judge whether the power should be used, not this House.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, regarding the White Paper. However, that White Paper does not go into sufficient detail on such issues. At the relevant point, it states that the remaining responsibilities should be devolved, which implies that the National Assembly for Wales would have the same powers as the UK Secretary of State in relation to England, not a selection from the menu. In other words, the responsibilities are devolved from Westminster.
	The North Wales Fire Authority has raised a point regarding an alleged conflict with Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It was suggested that what we proposed went against the sustaining and promotion of local government in Wales. That is a somewhat tenuous observation. Section 113 simply requires the Assembly to establish a partnership council. It nowhere suggests that local authorities alone must decide on everyone sitting on local government bodies. Indeed, the composition of the partnership council itself, including the balance between the National Assembly for Wales and the local authority members, is to be decided by the National Assembly. That is under Schedule 11 to the Act. The Opposition can pray in aid those issues, by all means, but they are not sufficient for us to accept that we should change the legislation.
	We hope that the situation never happens. I make it clear that the powers are those of last resort. It would be highly unusual for the situation to happen, but the fire and rescue service is an emergency service—as much so in Wales as in England. When designing the legislation, we need to ensure that the power exists for any situation that we can foresee or contemplate. If there is complete failure and breakdown of a combined authority, there may well be a need to appoint to the new authority people with experience of failing organisations and a track record of ability to turn them round. That is not an unimportant point to make.
	Should such appointments have to be made, safeguards for local democracy are built into the clause, including the appointees being in a minority and excluded from votes on precepting. We have given assurances—I repeat them—that we are not talking about men and women being put in place on the body. The posts will be publicly advertised under the Nolan principles. If the power is ever used, its use will be transparent.
	I say with due deference that we have not heard an argument in Committee or today that persuades us that there could never be a need for the power. However, as my noble friend Lord Evans said in Committee, it is a power, not an obligation. It is not the norm, so we do not expect things to start with it. Those with overall responsibility for the fire and rescue service—be they in England or Wales—should not be denied it as a last resort, a reserve power when there has been clear and transparent failure.
	Although there is a difference between the parties, if there were a proposal by a Conservative government for a reorganisation, I genuinely believe that they would build in the kind of safeguards that would make us as an opposition say, "What's that for? Why do you need that power?". The answer would be, "We don't use it as the norm but, just in case there's a problem, we wouldn't have to come back to Parliament with primary legislation". The power is a last-resort, reserved power that we would not expect to be the norm.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, one can see from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hanham just now and from this one that there is considerable concern. Mine is very relevant to the appointment of fire authorities in Wales. The Minister seems to suggest that there could be masses of failing fire authorities. I do not think that the evidence is that many fire authorities, if any, have failed at all. Other issues have normally caused the problems of the fire service.
	There is a process now. Fire authorities are appointed from local authorities—they are not the entire local authority. If the fire authority were failing, the best process would be for other members of that local authority to be appointed. That is certainly what would happen in the local authorities of which I know. If people on it were not thought good enough, other people would be put on it. They would be elected councillors. We seem to be getting the message that we want to get away from having elected councillors on fire authorities. I am concerned about that. They are local services, and there should be local authority members on them. It is important that we pick the best local authority members to be on the fire authority.
	As the Minister will understand—he has obviously had correspondence on the subject, too—there is some feeling about the matter in Wales. People were not consulted about it, and the provision suddenly appeared in the legislation. In Wales, it is felt to be a very anti-local government move. I am concerned about it, as are several Members of this House. We might have to return to it on Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) If a scheme under section 2 provides for members of a combined authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State, it must also provide that the members to be so appointed are not employees of a fire and rescue authority."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 15 at the request of the Welsh fire authorities, which are seeking clarification. The effect of Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 is that someone cannot be an employee and a member of the same authority, but it is not clear whether that section applies to combined authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether there are plans to include in orders provisions that a firefighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority that employs him.
	The fire authorities feel that it would be adequate to have an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Ministers are not planning to use powers in a scheme under Clause 2 to appoint employees. We believe that that should appear in the Bill, but I shall be happy to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a long-standing requirement in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 that employees of local government should not be members of the same authority. We are all familiar with that, particularly in relation to teachers and so forth. However, it is not clear whether that section applies to combined fire authorities. It certainly applies to fire and civil defence authorities in metropolitan areas and London because they are joint authorities for the purpose of Section 80. Are there plans to amend combination orders to make it clear that a fire fighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority which employs him? It is an important issue which should be clarified.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have no plans to appoint fire and rescue authority employees to a combined fire authority, but we would not wish to impose artificial restrictions that would prevent it doing so in all circumstances. The amendment is restrictive because it would ensure that no employee of a fire and rescue authority could be appointed by the Secretary of State to be a member of a combined fire and rescue authority. The amendment does not distinguish between employees of the fire and rescue authority in question and those who are employed by another fire and rescue authority. It is therefore an absolute prohibition and for that reason I must resist it.
	I realise that there are grave misgivings—putting it politely, but that is what it says here—about the basic proposition that the Secretary of State should have these powers. That has been the theme throughout more than one Bill I have dealt with, and we have also debated that matter. Whether or not we have convinced noble Lords opposite, the power to appoint could in some circumstances be vital to ensure that the authority can take crucial decisions essential to the modernisation of the fire service—which is what the Bill is all about—they want to probe further what kind of people we might want to appoint if the situation arose.
	We would not necessarily want to use the power to appoint to these authorities, which I have made clear. It sounds repetitious, but that is the case. Much will depend on the reasons for the combination scheme in the first place, but we are clear that we can envisage circumstances in which the constituent authorities have demonstrated that they lack the capacity to carry through change either because of insufficient expertise or a failure of leadership—not an unimportant point. The provisions allowing the Secretary of State to appoint a minority of members could then come into play.
	References have been made to other legislation, some of which imposed political restrictions on fire and rescue authority employees which would prevent them becoming an elected member of their own authority. But that is not an argument for preventing an employee sitting on an authority in a non-political capacity. Many public bodies have executive directors; for example, it is proposed that the Northern Ireland fire chief automatically is a member of the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service board.
	A prohibition on the officers of another authority being appointed could be quite restrictive; for example, we can envisage the circumstances where we might wish to appoint, say, a chief fire officer of a neighbouring authority to sit on a combined fire and rescue authority which we would be establishing. As I say, we have no plans to do so, but we can envisage circumstances in which that might be helpful to all concerned from the point of view of expertise, leadership and experience. It would therefore be negative absolutely to rule out such an opportunity, as proposed in the amendment.
	We have said that appointments to fire and rescue authorities will be subject to an open appointment process. The order which establishes the authority will set out the process, including such matters as the public advertisement of the roles and an independent assessor. It follows therefore that we would not simply appoint an existing employee without open competition and advertisement. It is not as though the department and the Secretary of State can act on a whim, putting people on the authorities behind closed doors. It would not be like that. It will follow public advertisement with an independent assessment—but only in the kind of circumstances I have said we can envisage. It would not be the norm.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in that situation, I suspect it would be difficult for anyone other than someone who fits the kind of specification spelled out by the Government to be appointed. These things tend to happen when someone has in mind a particular person and writes the person spec in order to achieve the right outcome, with all the processes gone through.
	I am still not wholly clear that this situation should be so completely distinct from other fire authorities, but I do not intend to pursue the point today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:
	[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [Fire safety]:

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
	"(iii) the use of sprinklers, misters and other devices as effective means of preventing and restricting the spread of fires"

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the role of sprinklers in fire prevention is given the prominence that we and others believe it deserves when fire authorities are carrying out their responsibilities under the Act in promoting fire safety.
	Like many others, particularly local government, we believe that the promotion of the use of sprinklers will support the new prevention powers provided in the Bill. Local authorities in particular remain concerned about the lack of promotion of sprinklers in schools and also in domestic properties. Perhaps we need to reflect on domestic properties in other legislation and in another place, but it is worth noting how strongly the House of Commons ODPM Select Committee recommended that building regulations be changed to encourage and ensure an increased use of sprinklers in domestic properties.
	In Committee, we had a long debate on schools and I have not changed my mind. As the Government want to expand provision in schools—we heard their recent Statement on education—it is even more important when putting more money into new schools to ensure that they are protected by sprinklers. Every year in the United Kingdom 2,000 schools are damaged by fire, and 70 per cent of those are started deliberately. That costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
	The common perception is that most fires which are deliberately started in schools occur outside school time at weekends and so on, but in fact a third of them take place when pupils are in school. I think it is true to say that, thus far, there have been no fatalities from school fires. However, if more are started during school time—I hope that that is not the case—obviously the provision of sprinklers will be important.
	The cornerstone of the reform programme currently under way in the Bill is a move away from an over-dependence on intervention once fires have started to an approach that is focused far more on preventing fires in the first place. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. This is an important matter. It is possible that this is not the right way to insert such a provision into the Bill, but I think that we need to send a clear message that sprinklers are important in terms of the building programmes that we would all like to see in schools in future.
	The White Paper talks of regularly reviewing the changing trends and new developments in building design. It mentions that the Government were going to look carefully at this issue and carry out research on the role of sprinklers in residential premises. It would be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could give an indication of where the Government are in relation to that matter. It is an important part of what we are doing today.
	Perhaps if I tell the Minister that I was one of the people who voted for him recently, that will encourage him to give me a favourable reply. It is always nice to vote on the winning side. Perhaps I shall receive an encouraging reply, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment in its present form. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with Amendment No. 19. I recognise the similarity between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I support much of what she has just said. However, it may be worth reminding ourselves of the issues touched on by both amendments.
	Both amendments seek to encourage the use of modern technology to reduce the number of fire deaths by promoting the use of sprinklers and other such devices. Here, we have a relatively simple technique that would be hugely effective in reducing the instances of fire and resulting deaths. It must be given all the serious attention that it can be afforded.
	As I mentioned in Committee, the numbers of fires and fire deaths continue to fall year on year. That is a welcome development. However, one death is still one too many, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.
	Our amendment would encourage the promotion of sprinklers in new-build schools and care homes. Arguably, those two cases, more than others, need such protection. The annual cost of fire damage in schools is around £100 million—the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned that in some detail—with one in 15 schools suffering from a fire in any given year. Sprinklers would be a very simple, effective and relatively cost-efficient method of protecting school property.
	Our amendment does not seek to impose sprinklers on a mandatory basis—far from it; it merely encourages a fire authority to promote their use whenever possible. The number of lives saved and the protection of property would be substantial.
	Quite rightly, this is one area that has attracted considerable cross-party support. The Minister detailed some of the work that his department has undertaken on this issue, and I should also like to hear answers to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Minister mentioned his desire to consider this matter in the context of his department's review of building regulations. That is a very important area to look at and I welcome that commitment.
	However, I urge the Minister to go one step further by considering the inclusion of this or the Liberal Democrat amendment in the Bill. I remind him that we are seeking not to make such a provision mandatory but merely to give fire authorities the opportunity, upon request, to promote the use of such technologies. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly be opposed to such a development and I hope that he will be able to give us a good answer today.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am certainly not opposed to the spirit of the amendment, and I agree with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. I hope that I can give a positive response. I am not sure that it will go much further than what was said in Committee, but I think that the Committee response was fairly positive, particularly when afterwards I read some of the other documentation.
	We accept that fire suppression systems should play a major role. There is no question about that. As the noble Baroness said, it is a question of fire prevention rather than fire-fighting. The fire service itself makes it clear that it wants to spend its time preventing fires in the first place. Therefore, we do not rule out fire suppression systems on the basis of cost without examining evidence. A risk assessment needs to be carried out on the specification and installation of appropriate suppression systems. These are highly technical and complex issues, and it is not as straightforward as simply fitting sprinklers, as might be thought to be the case. Of course, the technology is developing very fast; it is not standing still.
	So far as concerns new buildings, we think that the matter is best dealt with through building regulations. Following the recent terrible fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Glasgow, the protection of vulnerable people in care homes has been at the forefront of all our minds, particularly those looking at this system.
	The issue is raised again in Amendment No. 20. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment suggests that there may be a role for fire suppression systems in providing additional fire protection in care homes, whether for children, the elderly or disabled people. Residents in higher risk houses in multiple occupation and tall blocks of flats might also benefit. We shall examine this positively in more detail as part of our current review of Part B of the building regulations, which deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings. Amendment No. 20 also refers to fire suppression systems in new schools. I was briefed on this matter by two officials this morning. I picked up one of the papers this morning and saw that at the weekend a school had been severely damaged. Therefore, such fires are common. There is a real problem here and we have every right to be concerned. It is no good simply to say, "We're not doing anything because three-quarters of the fires are started outside school hours". That is not good enough because there is still no school for the kids on the Monday, even if the fire occurred at the weekend and no one was injured. That is no argument. Obviously safety is important, and the lost course work and the disruption to the work of the school must be taken into account.
	However, the figure for insured losses from school fires has fallen. I understand that it fell by about a quarter last year to an estimated £75 million. We take the matter very seriously. I do not believe that in most cases the possible insurance saving from the installation of a sprinkler system would be a sufficient reason for following that route. Fire risk is normally only one component of the total premium, and many schools are insured as one of a group of schools. In addition, a fire suppression system in one building will not make an appreciable difference to the overall risk or, indeed, to the premium. Therefore, fire suppression systems must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
	A new fire safety guidance document for schools, Building Bulletin 100, is being prepared by the Department for Education and Skills at present in close co-operation with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will cover risk assessment and allow a variety of fire engineering solutions to meet the assessed risk. The guidance will be subject to public consultation later this year and it will be included in the review of Part B of the building regulations. Therefore, work is under way this year, and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in both Houses at the appropriate time later in the year.
	We are about to commission research to examine what design constraints are relevant to domestic fire suppression systems and to identify the potential for systems which are effective in a domestic setting but which can be produced and installed at lower cost. That will inform a cost-benefit analysis of systems at various levels.
	We would argue that, whatever the level of research—this is not an unimportant point—it will remain vitally important to have effective smoke alarms. A fire suppression system is one thing but a smoke alarm is another. It gives those extra vital few minutes to increase the chance of escape. As I mentioned in Committee when I referred to my own experience of visiting the Fire Service College—on my own rather than the "state visit" with a group of Ministers—when I was able to don the equipment and the gear, it is the smoke that kills. That is why a smoke alarm is vital to give those extra few minutes.
	We take this issue extremely seriously. The matter is actively being dealt with via building regulations. This is not pie in the sky and a promise for the future. The issue will be dealt with in building regulations, but it has to be dealt with on a risk basis in a technical way with a proper benefit analysis. Obviously, public safety is crucial in the buildings I mentioned where people are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and children, and those living in a care-type home who do have total control over their circumstances. It behoves us to ensure that there are the maximum safety measures.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I hear what he says about the various areas that may be dealt with under other legislation in future. However, I have one question. Under Clause 6(2)(b)(i) as drafted, the fire services are requested to give advice on how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property. Will such guidance to local authorities include advice on sprinklers? I hear what the Minister says about the problems; that is, they are not the total answer; there is much technical detail; they must be used in the right way and one has to understand how they work. However, it seems to me that if fire officers are to carry out the role of fire prevention, they need to have the latest information that the Government have on sprinklers.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am told that on Report I should not reply at this stage, but I shall as the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she voted for me. The way I read the Bill, obviously firefighters are not giving just advice but their professional, considered advice. If the firefighters think that something should be done, or that something should be fitted, in all the circumstances that would be good advice to give. The way the Bill is drafted, nothing can be ruled out.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, that is helpful and goes quite a long way—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should have said, "Yes".

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, that is even more helpful and goes some way to satisfying my concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being) shall apply to every fire and rescue authority which is not a local authority within the meaning of the section as if it were such a local authority."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment refers to "the power of well-being", as the shorthand goes. It seeks to extend the specific power which local authorities have to combined authorities. The Minister said at the last stage that he had not received robust examples of where the powers in the Bill are insufficient. He was quite robust in saying that.
	I have limited the amendment because I realised in Committee that it was incorrect to refer to all authorities, as those which are not combined authorities will have the power in any event. However, it is a power, not a function, and I suppose the short question is: what is the harm? I think that both the Minister and I would be cross with ourselves if our collective imaginations had not come up with convincing examples so that this power were not included but there was a real example where the absence of power was critical. I do not know whether that has been sufficiently oratorical to win the Minister round this time. I look forward to what he has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness on this occasion. Nothing has really changed since Grand Committee. As she knows, the power of well-being is available to all the principal local authorities in the country. As a result, county fire and rescue authorities have access to the power of well-being by virtue of being a department of the principal local authority for their area. However, combined fire and rescue authorities, the metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, or the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) do not share this multipurpose characteristic, nor are they directly elected. So, to that extent things have not changed since Grand Committee.
	The Bill recognises and facilitates the modern role of the fire and rescue service. With the reform of the fire service, that is not an unimportant point. In our view, the duty to promote fire safety under Clause 6 will provide all fire and rescue authorities with powers to work with other agencies and local partners to help save lives and create safer communities. The provisions in Clauses 5, 11 and 12, when taken together, significantly extend the local flexibility and discretion for all fire and rescue authorities to help to discharge their functions and provide a service that responds to local priorities. So, in that sense, there is a change but it is obviously not a change that goes as far as the noble Baroness would require.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister said that the members of combined authorities are not directly elected. I do not know whether by that he means that they are not necessarily elected members of authorities—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, indirectly elected.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was going to say that we have been trying to rectify that. One is accustomed to looking at provisions and asking who benefits as a critical way of understanding why something is being put forward. I come back to my question, but this time it will be merely rhetorical as I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment in any event, and say that this is not an issue of asking for whose benefit—perhaps it is for the benefit of the wider community—but of asking what is the harm. I really do not see what is the harm. Although nothing has changed, I do not think that the point has been answered. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
	"EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
	(1) A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—
	(a) delivering emergency medical care to persons seriously injured by fire or the effects of fire;
	(b) delivering emergency medical care to persons injured in road traffic accidents; and
	(c) providing other emergency medical care;
	in situations where employees of the authority are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which the authority has functions under sections 7, 8 and 9.
	(2) The level of provision that must be made under subsection (1) above is that which it is reasonable to make having regard to—
	(a) the number of such incidents to which the authority is required to respond;
	(b) the typical period of time during which the authority's employees are at the scene before the arrival of specialist medical or paramedical personnel; and
	(c) the conclusions of the consultation referred to in subsection (3).
	(3) A fire and rescue authority must consult not less than once in every two years each National Health Service Ambulance Trust which has responsibility for responding to emergency incidents within its area about the level of provision it is appropriate for the authority to make in accordance with subsection (1)."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, in Committee we had a useful discussion about fire engines carrying defibrillators and firemen being trained to use them in first-responder and co-responder schemes and attempts to ensure that the fire service would be able to have emergency medical capabilities.
	By tabling Amendment No. 22 again, I am seeking to bring some kind of closure to this aspect of the Bill as I think that last time we all agreed with the principle behind the amendment. However, we did not necessarily agree the vehicle for supporting this principle.
	The Minister said that Clause 11(2)(a) provided clear legal authority to fire services personnel to undertake training and administer treatment. Can the Minister perhaps indicate how emergency medical cover can be flagged up in guidance regarding Clause 11 and how it can be made clear to fire and rescue authorities that carrying defibrillators for use on the general public is a perfectly reasonable thing to do?
	The Minister also said that although he could not agree with emergency medical care becoming a core function of the fire and rescue services, he commended the fact that firefighters often provide at the scene lifesaving assistance by stabilising victims before the ambulance arrives. As I made clear last time, the gap that the amendment addresses was identified in the Bain report. Our debate last time also raised the important point about what public expectations are in this area. Having re-read in Hansard the Minister's reply to the amendment, I feel that he needs to go a little further in explaining the Government's position. It seems to be a continuation of the status quo.
	However, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, the status quo is a "postcode lottery" when it comes to the emergency provision of medical care, which he claimed was unacceptable. Thus, there seems to be a gap between that sentiment and the Minister's view, which essentially keeps things as they are, so that it is left to the fire and rescue authorities to decide what they will do, if anything, by way of emergency medical care. I would appreciate it if the Minister could reconcile those two views and clearly state the Government's position. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that the short answer based on the note I have—I shall give a considered reply—is that we want it to happen, but that we do not think it should be a statutory duty. The amendment would create a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to make provision to deliver emergency medical assistance where the fire and rescue service personnel are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which they have functions under the various parts of the Bill.
	In determining the level of provision, each fire and rescue authority would have to take account of what was reasonable, including the likely number of incidents attended and the period of time before the arrival of specialist medical staff. Each fire and rescue authority would also be required to consult the NHS ambulance trust operating in its area at least once every two years.
	We debated at some length the same amendment in Grand Committee. I fully accept that it is right to bring it back, but I will only repeat the arguments. We recognise the underlying aim of the amendment. We would like it to happen, but it should not be a statutory duty. The Government's view is that to extend the duties in this statutory way as proposed would be unhelpful.
	It goes without saying that the aim of the emergency service response is to reduce deaths and the severity of injuries. Adopting new ways of working and co-operating more with other emergency services can greatly improve the service provided to the public. That is why we have made it clear in the draft Fire and Rescue National Framework that fire and rescue authorities should explore the benefits of working with others, including, for example, by implementing co-responder schemes.
	Under Clause 11, we are giving fire and rescue authorities the power to equip for and respond to a range of scenarios, and co-responder initiatives could form a part of that response. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make it a statutory duty. It comes down to the fact that in this House, from the point of view of being at the centre, we have to trust people at the locality running the schemes to make their best judgment. They will depend on many factors, and they will have responsibility for delivering the schemes. We think they should determine this issue.
	Clause 11 will remove any doubt about the power of fire and rescue authorities to instruct staff to implement such powers. We have made it clear that the final decision should be made locally.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I particularly asked not necessarily for the provision to be on the face of the Bill, but for guidance regarding Clause 11 to be stronger, because it could obviously save lives. Will the Minister comment on the guidance on Clause 11?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do so when I come to it. I am trying to give a full response. I shall give a response to the noble Lord's point. This is an important part of the Bill and I want to place a couple more paragraphs on the record for people following our proceedings.
	For their own health and safety, firefighters have emergency first aid expertise which encompasses life saving skills. These are skills that firefighters already provide, where appropriate, to injured members of the public at the scene of an incident before the ambulance service arrives.
	However, responsibility for ensuring reasonable provision of emergency first aid and pre-hospital care rests with the Secretary of State for Health through the ambulance service. We do not want two emergency services prepared and trained to deliver medical assistance.
	I turn to the noble Lord's point. The national framework encourages fire and rescue authorities to work with other services. We will highlight the scope of Clause 11 to authorities when offering guidance on the provisions of the Bill. So it will be clearly there in the guidance and in the Act if the Bill gets enacted, which I suspect it probably will.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, where the fire and rescue service arrives first on the scene of a really serious accident and someone is in the process of having or has had a heart attack, are the members of the fire and rescue service who are able to do so entitled to take action to help that person? Every shop, business and office has people trained to a very high degree in first aid and including the use of defibrillators. I am not aware that they are restricted to dealing only with their staff. Are those who are already appropriately trained in the fire and rescue service able to deal with an emergency when they arrive at an accident without necessarily having to wait for the paramedics or the ambulance to arrive, thereby saving people's lives by using their skills? Are they able to do that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, one cannot describe the circumstances because the implication is that there is no fire—this is a road traffic accident. A fire could be raging. The fire service arrives to put the fire out and save lives and buildings. Let us be clear that saving lives is more important than saving buildings. But if they can give first-aid treatment in advance of the paramedics arriving they are able to do so. They are not banned from doing so. Sometimes they carry equipment in their appliances which would assist them.
	That is not always necessarily the case. But there is no ban on people helping other people. Firefighters going to fight a fire may find people who they are able to assist before the paramedics arrive. There is no ban on them helping in that way. The amendment seems to make it a statutory duty to carry the equipment and have the training. It is best left to the local fire authorities in conjunction with partnership arrangements and co-responder schemes to make those kinds of arrangements in a formal way, but there is nothing to stop them assisting people in the circumstances the noble Baroness explained.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I know I should not keep standing up at this stage, but this is an important aspect. Equally, therefore, there would not be any restriction on a fire and rescue service saying it would be normal practice, for example, to carry a defibrillator in every appliance, so that if necessary it could be used and that at least one member of every crew should be able to deal with first aid in an emergency.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my understanding is that that is entirely within the remit of a fire and rescue service. It is not on the face of the Bill, but that is a matter that the services can decide. They are not banned from doing so by the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we have had an interesting exchange between my noble friend Lady Hanham and the Minister. The noble Lord rather disturbed me. He indicated that most of the activity of the fire and rescue service concerns fires. It is not. Fires are a fairly small part of their work these days. As my noble friend said, they get to accident scenes first most of the time. Therefore, there is a potential life-saving element to all this. That is why we are keen to explore it. We have to accept what the Minister has said today. He has said that the Government will issue good guidance for Clause 11. I hope the Government will stick to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 [Emergencies]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) An order under the section conferring a function additional to its function under sections 7 and 8 for which a fire and rescue authority must make provision, shall also provide for the payment to that authority by the Secretary of State of sums calculated to meet the capital and recurring costs of such function."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 provides that the Secretary of State should pay for the cost of conferring specialist responsibilities on fire and rescue authorities. When we discussed the matter in Grand Committee the Minister gave a response which was reassuring but did not address the principle of the amendment. If I explain what I mean by that, I hope the House will understand why we have returned to the subject.
	The Minister reassured us by making it clear that in terms of the new dimensional work carried out in the operational environment of the fire and rescue services, the Government will fund these arrangements. The figures he gave us were £188 million over a three-year period. However, that should not disguise the fact that the Minister's reply was not satisfactory for two reasons. First, he did not address the crux of the matter, which was summed up neatly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the question: while the Government may think the amendment is unnecessary in 2004, what about in 2014? We are talking about large amounts of money. There should be something in the Bill that effectively closes the loophole that would allow a government to pass off costs that are properly their responsibility on to fire and rescue authorities.
	The second reason for our return to the issue is that the Minister commented that the new Bill, which, as we all know, replaces an Act now nearly 60 years old, will have a better chance of standing the test of time if it is not loaded with unnecessary detail. We have been plugging away to get a little more detail into the Bill; it would be helpful. The Minister's comment is disingenuous. The new legislation will stand the test of time if it is credible and workable; it will be so only if we can be absolutely clear who pays for what.
	We must avoid the kind of clashes that we saw between central and local government over, for example, council tax rises. If the Government admit that the kind of functions conferred in Clause 9 should be paid for by central government, why risk inviting problems of uncertainty further down the line by not addressing that in the Bill? The amendment not only makes this part of the legislation fairer but also will help to head off potential arguments about financing these services in the future. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I wish to clarify that if a new burden is placed on a fire and rescue authority, it will be dealt with under the new burden rules, which we follow meticulously in financial arrangements. In response to the points that the noble Baroness raised about the extra money in the New Dimension programme, we recognise the need to provide ongoing funding for resilience purposes and will be doing that in consultation with the Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Local Government Association, so long as the need exists.
	There is also the implication of what she said about the ongoing costs of dealing with such incidents. We believe that we have in place arrangements for funding New Dimension incidents. The Government will provide funding annually from 2005–06 to meet the crewing needs of this investment. The level of funding and the means of its allocation is the subject of ongoing continuing discussions at present between authorities, the Local Government Association and central government. We do not think that the Bill needs to make separate provision for that.
	The draft order places a duty on fire and rescue authorities to plan and equip for emergencies, such as flooding and chemical spills. Much of fire and rescue services' time is already spent dealing with such non-fire emergencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said; they are known as special service incidents. They have acquired a range of equipment and expertise in these matters. It is worth putting on record that in 2002–03 the total number of special service incidents, excluding road traffic incidents, accounted for 12.7 per cent of all operational incidents attended by fire and rescue authorities in England. We are simply creating a clear framework in the Bill to enable the fire and rescue authorities to plan and respond to some of these incidents. The costs of dealing with such incidents are met from existing fire and rescue authority funding streams.
	If, as a result of a Clause 9 order, a new burden is placed on a fire and rescue authority, it will be dealt with under the new burden rules. At the moment, the only new challenge in the draft order is responding to the increased terrorist threat. We recognise that and have funded accordingly, providing £188 million over three years, which includes training. We are also discussing with the Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Local Government Association the revenue implications of responding to New Dimension incidents. It does not matter where the work is carried out, whether it is in its own area or another fire and rescue authority area, the equipment, training and additional funding to cover resource costs will still have been provided by the Secretary of State. So we do not think that there is any need to make provision for an additional payment.
	I remind noble Lords that the early draft of the order, of which they have a copy, is not yet available to the public. We expect to launch a full public consultation on it later this year. In many ways, the key issue is ensuring that we are not trying to get something on the cheap. If there is a new burden, it will have to be dealt with under the rules, which are set out clearly. Local authorities are not slow to point out the new burdens. We operate it meticulously. In any event, in my experience in Whitehall and from the papers that I see, Ministers' attention is drawn to the fact that this is a new burden and therefore will have to be paid for.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; it more or less answers the situation. The only trouble is that Ministers have a great habit of pruning their budgets—where they see a new burden that might have been paid for a couple of years before, they suddenly decide that it can be taken out of the budget. We are talking about serious areas associated with the fire and rescue services, such as potential terrorist threats and others, as the Minister said. I accept now that the Government would ensure that the appropriate fire authority—that is what it would be; it would not necessarily be all of them—would be reimbursed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 [Power to respond to other eventualities]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) The power conferred by subsection (1)(b) may be exercised outside as well as within the authority's area in respect of events or situations relating to functions conferred on the authority by the Secretary of State under section 9 with a requirement that such functions be discharged outside the authority's area."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in Committee, I did not feel that the Government got to grips with why we thought that the amendment was necessary. The proposed subsection would restrict the power under Clause 11 to functions conferred on the authority under Clause 9 and in respect of which the Secretary of State has given the authority an obligation to operate outside his area. We are talking about limiting the power on an authority to act outside its own area on discretionary matters.
	The Minister said in Committee that an unintended consequence of the amendment would be to reduce local flexibility and the power to equip for any eventuality. We do not see why that is the case. The Minister gave the example of a co-responder scheme that addressed risks posed to the community. But this misses the point precisely because presumably this would happen within the authority's area. The point is rather that fire and rescue authorities are also empowered by Clause 11(4) to respond to eventualities, broadly defined, in other authorities' areas.
	We want to avoid a situation arising where two neighbouring authorities, which might have very different priorities in their discretionary services, can interpret this part of the legislation as giving them a free pass to set up various discretionary services in a neighbouring authority's area because they have identified this as necessary in their integrated risk plans. Can the Minister say whether there is anything to stop one authority taking action that it considers appropriate in the area of another? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Q&A section at the end of my brief contains an interesting point about mutual assistance schemes. I do not think that the noble Baroness was talking about mutual assistance schemes; she was almost talking about private enterprise schemes.

Baroness Hanham: Predatory takeover, my Lords.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, predatory action. The amendment is identical to that moved in Committee. We have read Hansard; there is clearly concern that there was cross-purpose in the discussion, for which I take full responsibility. Clearly, the noble Baroness's chief concern remains the ability of a fire and rescue authority to act outside its area under Clause 11.
	Amendment No. 24 goes much wider and would prevent the fire and rescue authority preparing to respond to the risks and needs of its community as identified, for example, in its integrated risk management plan, because Amendment No. 24 explicitly links Clause 11(1)(b) to the exercise of functions placed on the authority by the order under Clause 9. That approach is unnecessary. An order made under Clause 9 provides a fire and rescue authority with the powers necessary to make provision to discharge the functions placed on it. That includes the power for the fire and rescue authority to act outside its area, so there is no obvious benefit to the operation of Clause 9 by the approach placed on the amendment.
	The effect of Clause 11 would be diminished if the amendment were agreed. The purpose of Clause 11(1)(b) is to ensure that the fire and rescue authority can plan and prepare to respond to an event or situation. It is not a power to respond to the event or situation which is found in Clause 11(1)(a). But this power anticipates the need to meet future risks. It is crucial if the fire and rescue authorities are to be empowered to meet local need and to create safer communities. Amendment No. 24 would remove that flexibility and discretion.
	In Committee, as today, the noble Baroness questioned the unrestrained ability of fire and rescue authorities to move into a neighbouring area and effectively set up business; that is, predatory, as the noble Baroness has just said. We do not share the noble Baroness's concerns about empire building which has—I have got to read this out—more than a touch of the regionalisation by stealth theory that remains ever popular on the Benches opposite.
	This is not a surreptitious takeover. It is not another avenue for the Secretary of State to regionalise the whole country. There is no secret sub-plot for fire appliances to be sent out carrying ballot papers or new Bills for elected authorities. We have no plans for that. It is not regionalisation by stealth.
	The Bill defines the statutory fire and rescue authority for an area and on whom rests the obligation to provide core functions. There is no argument about that from a legal point of view. There is nothing in Clause 11 that would override either this definition or the statutory responsibilities.
	Clause 11 provides a fire and rescue authority—perhaps one specialising in rope rescue or another specialist activity—the authority to provide that service within another fire and rescue authority's area. I apologise, I cannot read this for laughing.
	In view of the assurances that I have given about its operation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will give his notes to Hansard and that we can all enjoy the joke when we read it tomorrow. I shall be most inspired to know what is causing such hilarity. It is a long time since I have had the giggles. They are always started by one person, but they become infectious.
	While we are all struggling with that, I do not think that I can do anything other than thank the Minister for his detailed reply—or his nearly-detailed reply. I am satisfied that the fire and rescue authorities will not be able to act in a predatory manner. I hope that by the time we reach Amendment No. 25, the Minister will have found another joke that we can also share. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 25:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
	"FIRE, DEATH AND ARSON TARGETS AND REPORTING ON PERFORMANCE
	(1) The Secretary of State shall set a target for—
	(a) the reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home; and
	(b) the reduction in the number of deliberate fires.
	(2) The targets referred to in subsection (1) shall be published annually by the Secretary of State for a period of five years forward.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament at least once in every session a report specifying—
	(a) the targets under subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b);
	(b) any changes to those targets since the previous report and the reasons for those changes;
	(c) measures taken or being taken to achieve the targets set out in subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b); and
	(d) the Secretary of State's assessment of progress towards achieving those targets."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we return to this amendment which, again, we moved in Committee. I was left with some unanswered questions that I shall try to condense into two areas. First, can the Minister say why the Government have reduced their targets for accidental deaths in the home? What is the timescale for achieving them? I understand that the original target set last summer was for a reduction of 20 per cent by 2004. That has now been extended to 2010.
	We understand that it is necessary to have reasonable time to measure progress. But pushing the timeframe back to 2010 completely undermines the purpose of having a target. Why was that not taken into consideration when the targets were originally set? I should also like to know who was consulted on the change of targets. Were they approved or agreed by anyone other than the Government?
	Secondly, I do not see that the requirement to set targets far ahead—our second point in the amendment—should be a difficult obstacle. The amendment is deliberately inflexible—I repeat, inflexible. It focuses minds on addressing the various issues within a given timeframe—unlike the previous government targets—and it need not preclude innovation in new developments. It would, however, be the bottom line and thus highlight the Government's commitment to the modernisation programme for the fire and rescue services, which underpins the Bill.
	The amendment requires that as part of the framework arrangements, the Secretary of State sets out annually, on a five-year forward basis, targets for a reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home and incidents of arson. It requires him to report to Parliament annually on progress in achieving those targets, which is not a terribly onerous burden. Surely the Government will not object to putting that at the centre of the framework structure, with clear targets that are updated regularly. That would thus enable them to measure the progress of the reforms more speedily than they are proposing. Normally, I do not want to major on targets, but if the Government are going to have targets, they must live up to the obligations that they set. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I was not present in Grand Committee when these targets were discussed. At the risk of adding to the mirth on the Front Bench, I confess that I am always uneasy when statutory targets of this nature are proposed, as distinct from informal, loose targets or, better still, aspirations. They always remind me of five-year or 10-year plans, which are so characteristic of 20th century authoritarian regimes. Of course, neither government targets nor proposed opposition targets are remotely authoritarian in intent.
	Nevertheless, the zeal to achieve a fixed target can present dangers. One always thinks of the law of unintended consequences: for example, how on earth can the incidence of arson be systematically reduced in this country without installing CCTV cameras at close intervals on every street in Britain?
	One always thinks of the Government's target—the previous Conservative government were also to some extent to blame—of reducing gun crime. One may ask what that has achieved. It has resulted in legislation causing immense hardship to respectable, law-abiding pistol shooters, but has not reduced gun crime to the slightest degree. Indeed, gun crime has increased considerably since legally owned pistols were virtually banned. We really should be cautious about such proposals, however well intentioned they undoubtedly are.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for my unprofessional conduct—it was the idea of having to read out about fire engines in "hot pursuit" of each other and then having to go down into an "inland waterway". The term "predatory" was the trigger, and I am sorry.
	However, it is a little surprising to see this amendment. As will be known, the Government have been very much criticised in the other place for the proliferation of performance targets. The amendment would have precisely that effect, enshrining the targets in legislation for the foreseeable future.
	We are committed to the new national targets for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and for the reduction of deliberate fires, which were announced in the fire White Paper. Any implication to the contrary is unfounded. As before, progress on the targets will be reported in the Annual Report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is deposited in the Library. The national framework also includes our targets, and we are committed to reporting against the delivery of that as well.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have today announced the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2004. It includes a new public service agreement target that reaffirms our commitment to achieving the long-term reductions in fire deaths and deliberate fire, including in the worst-off areas, set out in the White Paper. That is proof, if proof were needed, that we take very seriously the importance of making significant progress on these issues.
	The targets set out in the fire and rescue service White Paper have now been formulated into the public service agreements as part of the spending review. A massive amount of public consultation was held on the public service agreements before these targets were included and we think that they are sufficiently challenging. As the proportion of older people in the population grows year by year, if we take no action we could expect an additional 200 accidental fire deaths over the period up to 2010. But instead the target on accidental fire deaths commits us to save 1,000 lives in that period. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress. Over the first four years of the target, accidental fire deaths in the home are on average 17 per cent below the target baseline.
	The new floor element—that no fire authority should have fire deaths more than a quarter above the national average—is also challenging. The highest fatality rate per 100,000 population is currently 200 per cent of the average, and in about a fifth of fire authorities fire deaths currently stand close to or above the target level. We are providing additional support to those authorities through the Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund.
	For arson, the target is equally challenging. On recent trends, annual incidents of arson could have been close to 190,000 by 2010, but we are committed to cutting it to a little over 100,000. I am glad to say that arson was down 3 per cent in the year ending June 2003. Nor can I support the proposed fixed five-year horizon for both targets. As I have said, we are happily in the position that accidental fire deaths are the lowest for over a generation. Of course we seek to prevent every preventable death, but the number is already low enough to fluctuate randomly from year to year.
	A fair measure of progress, and of the impact of all the efforts by the fire and rescue service, the police and other partners, requires an average over a reasonable length of time. That is why we have chosen to set the national target for accidental fire deaths as the average over the period 1999–2010. The target date also matches the 2010 target date for the Healthier Nation targets, in order to signal the strong link we see between fire prevention and the whole health promotion agenda.
	For deliberate fires, a fixed five-year target would not take account of the external factors which affect the annual figures. Two-thirds of the total is made up of vehicle fires, often where a vehicle has been abandoned. In recent years, abandonment has been an increasing problem as the cost of safe disposal has fallen on the last owner, due to a drop in scrap metal prices.
	I fully understand that the proposed approach is deliberately inflexible, but in the future there may be compelling reasons for different targets, for instance, on false alarms. More immediately, some fire and rescue authorities are already setting local public service agreement targets, which include the reduction of serious injuries in order to recognise this important category of the harm caused by fire, and to motivate continued effort where fire deaths are already very low. We would want to introduce a national target on the reduction of serious injuries as soon as reliable data can be established.
	There is nothing between us about what we want to do here, but we do not think that it should be set out as proposed on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness sufficient reason to explain why we are using different timescales for the targets that have been set.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is fair to say that what underlies this is a degree of criticism that targets which looked extremely testing at the time when they were first set—a reduction between 1994 and 1999 and then up to 2004—have suddenly slipped another six years. Our amendment was designed clearly to smarten up those targets in relation to both fire deaths and incidents of arson, and to try to ensure that they were met.
	I hear what the Minister has said about the figures and the arrangements under the public service agreements. I hope that they will achieve what has been set out, but this demonstrates a real concern about targets and the dates set. If people think that they are going to achieve a target in 2004 but it does not happen because the date has slipped for another five or six years, that is not much of an incentive to try to achieve it in the first place. If targets are set, they must be real targets within a firm timescale.
	However, it is clear that there has been movement on the issue, which ultimately is what we all want: everyone wants to see a reduction in fire deaths and certainly in incidents of arson. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 [Reinforcement schemes]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 7, line 34, leave out "other fire and rescue authorities" and insert "fire and rescue authorities for all areas which are contiguous with the area of the authority and may enter into a reinforcement scheme with any other fire and rescue authority"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of the criteria for the establishment of reinforcement schemes because it is our belief that the clause as currently drafted is far too woolly. The aim of our amendment is to tighten up the definition of Clause 13(1). That means defining the authorities with which a fire authority is obliged to enter into reinforcement schemes. Common sense suggests that geographical contiguity would be the most appropriate criterion. However, beyond that there should be an ability—a permissive power—to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities where appropriate.
	At present the Bill places an obligation on an authority to enter into such a scheme with potentially any, or even all, other fire authorities. That is unsatisfactory given the uncertainty surrounding the future configuration of fire authorities' boundaries. Fire authorities need to be sure that they have satisfied at least the minimum required of them by subsection (1).
	It may be the case that mutual assistance schemes are functioning well between fire and rescue authorities now, but precisely because of the unknown future demands of national resilience and precisely because this did not have to be addressed in 1947, we should take this opportunity to leave no room for doubt as to what is necessary; that is, schemes with contiguous authorities, and what may be useful but not compulsory, such as schemes with non-contiguous authorities.
	I do not think that this amendment will be a source of great disagreement. I thought that it would help to delineate more clearly the fundamental responsibilities from the voluntary ones. This may become more important if and when we have fewer but larger authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 would mean that fire and rescue authorities would be required to enter into a reinforcement scheme only with neighbouring authorities, although they would have discretion to extend such schemes to other authorities. At this point I shall plead history.
	As the noble Baroness understands, Clause 13 re-enacts the existing provisions of the Fire Services Act 1947 requiring fire authorities to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities and simply extends them to apply to their new core duties under the Bill. As such, we are not sure why the noble Baroness really wants to limit the requirement for fire and rescue authorities to co-operate in this way. While it is true that the 1947 Act does not specifically require cross-border mutual assistance, such schemes are already in place between adjacent fire and rescue authorities and are integral to the day-to-day operational effectiveness of the fire and rescue service.
	One of the reasons for including the new core duties in the schemes was to make it easier for fire and rescue authorities to participate in a national mutual aid agreement for non-fire emergencies as well as providing simple cross-boundary assistance between authorities in the event of a fire. We feel it is important that fire and rescue authorities work together in this way in order to improve our national resilience to terrorist attack and natural disaster. Removing any requirement for fire and rescue authorities to enter into reinforcement schemes with authorities other than their immediate neighbours would not provide the necessary resilience in the event of an emergency.
	Fire and rescue authorities are in the process of signing a national mutual aid agreement to cover emergencies such as the increased terrorist threat, but the development of such an agreement has been hindered by concerns that participating in such an agreement could create a conflict with their local duties. Limiting the requirement for a fire and rescue authority to enter into a mutual reinforcement scheme only with neighbouring authorities, and leaving it entirely voluntary whether they extend such schemes to other authorities, will not provide the solid statutory base they need in order to remove such concerns. This could endanger the arrangements under Clause 9 for ensuring cover for those authorities responding to an emergency outside their areas.
	We do not want to be prescriptive. We want to ensure that the authorities are under a duty to enter into a wider scheme rather than a simple cross-border one. This is for resilience purposes. It will be entirely up to the authorities to decide how wide such schemes should be, based on operational need. This matter should be left to the individual fire authorities, which have hands-on experience on a daily basis.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear reply. It is interesting that Clause 13 states that:
	"A fire and rescue authority must, so far as practicable, enter into a reinforcement scheme".
	A "practical" arrangement may very well be—and probably always will be—with the authority next door. The best starting place would seem to be with the authorities abutting a particular fire and rescue authority's area. Of course, there may now be more than one abutting authority, and probably at least two.
	Indeed, making such arrangements on a "must" basis would absorb nearly all the material and time of a fire authority. It would therefore be better for it to have a "conditional" reason for entering into arrangements with other fire authorities. In other words, you have a responsibility to start with the contiguous authorities; thereafter, if you have any time, money and so on left over, you would be entitled to go to other authorities. That is the purpose of the amendment.
	However, I hear what the Minister says. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Directions as to reinforcement schemes]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 8, line 18, after "State" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 and 57. Again, these amendments are brought forward at the instigation of the Welsh authorities; they are concerned about the position in regard to crossing the boundary between England and Wales. I assume that what the Minister said about the need for regional arrangements does not apply in this context.
	The concern is whether the provisions in the Bill will work where one authority is in England, one is in Wales and the others are in one country or the other. There seem to be no powers of direction in the Bill to resolve cross-border situations. The central problem is that, as drafted, the wording of Clauses 14 and 17 seems to assume that the same person would be involved in dealing with all the fire and rescue authorities concerned.
	Under Clause 60, references to the Secretary of State are to be read, in respect of Wales, as references to the National Assembly. So there is a quite clear and quite proper division of powers. The Welsh authorities ask your Lordships to assume a hypothetical case—which is not far removed from the case put to the House earlier by the Minister—involving, say, the North Wales fire authority and the Cheshire fire authority; not in this case the Staffordshire and Shropshire fire authorities. The Secretary of State could not issue a direction to the two fire authorities because he does not have the power to issue directions in Wales and, similarly, the Assembly could not issue a direction in England—but Clause 17 requires that any direction is issued to the two authorities.
	It does not seem entirely clear whether an authority can ask the Secretary of State or the Assembly to act under Clause 14(1)(c) or Clause 17(2). It may be that, because of the way in which Clause 60 works, only Welsh authorities can ask the Assembly to act and only English authorities can go to the Secretary of State. The amendments therefore seek to make clear that a direction may be issued to one or more authorities and that any fire and rescue authority may ask the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to act.
	These amendments may not be necessary to provide for such a situation. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that they are not, or indicate a way forward. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, given the nature of the noble Baroness's speech in moving the amendment, I do not need to use the incredibly copious notes that I have; she has explained the position clearly. Superficially, it may look as though there is a problem, but we do not believe that there is.
	I understand the reasoning behind the amendments but do not feel that, for example, the refusal of an English fire authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme with a Welsh authority warrants the intervention of respective governments. The same situation has existed between England and Scotland since the Scotland Act 1998 devolved the functions of the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 1947 to Scottish Ministers. Neither the Secretary of State nor Scottish Ministers have the power at the moment to direct authorities to make a reinforcement scheme involving both English and Scottish fire authorities.
	However, this has not stopped authorities having such arrangements. For example, Cumbria has an agreement with the Dumfries and Galloway authority, while Northumberland has one with Lothian and the Borders. These are voluntary arrangements that have been entered into for operational reasons around the provision of a firefighting service rather than for wider national resilience reasons.
	Given that there is no existing power of direction between cross-border authorities in Scotland and England, we are not convinced that the situation between Wales and England should be any different. In other words, the arrangement works—and has worked perfectly well—between Scotland and England. We have now got the experience and, therefore, we do not think that there should be any difference between England and Wales.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it may be that relationships across the border are better than they are within the country, but the Minister's argument seems to be that there should not be any power of direction at all. Authorities obviously would be in the best situation and would carry on doing things in a commonsense way; they would not have to be directed.
	In the happy world that the Minister has put before the House one would not need all this detail. I am not convinced about the technical aspects but shall not pursue the matter today; those who know more than me will read precisely what the Minister has said.
	The noble Lord referred to his "copious" notes. If they provide a technical back-up to what he has said, perhaps he will write to me, put it on the record and share the information.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will do that.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Directions as to arrangements under section 16]:
	[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Charging]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) Subject to the following provisions, a fire and rescue authority may charge a person providing a service to him if—
	(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment to provide the service to him, and
	(b) he has agreed to the provision."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. Amendment No. 32 would place fire authorities on a similar footing to other local authorities by placing the discretion for charging in the hands of the relevant fire authority. In Committee, the Minister gave a lengthy response about why the amendment would run into problems. I will tackle one of those arguments because, on reflection, it does not seem so compelling.
	The first caveat that the Minister outlined was that the amendment would restrict the services for which the authorities could charge to those that they are not obliged to provide. He said that the amendment would be difficult because, in practice, authorities respond to a fairly large range of requests. However, as the Minister said, the rules of the game have changed so that responses to non-fire incidents have become part of their core functions. Therefore, we would concur that they should not charge for such call-outs. Also, subsection (5)(b) allows them to charge nothing, should they so wish.
	The second caveat, which I agree may be problematic, is the need to have express consent from the person to be charged. I recognise that there are various pitfalls that could crop up around the way that this amendment is drafted. However, in most situations, the question of charging arises precisely because a core function is not involved. Because the situation is not deemed to be an emergency in which life or property is in danger, there should be enough time to seek consent.
	Amendment No. 33 is designed to bring greater openness, clarity and transparency to the actual process of charging. I disagree with the Minister that the amendment would constrain an authority's ability to exercise its discretion appropriately. The wording of the amendment is helpful. It states:
	"a list which specifies the amounts the authority will charge in specific circumstances".
	That implies that the list cannot be exhaustive because it is impossible to list all specific circumstances. However, it can usefully list those that are found to recur, which would presumably help those who may be charged. I do not see why the list cannot be couched in language that alerts people to the nature of a charging regime and that inherently involves discretion and consequent variation in charges. The Government have looked at the amendment and tried to count up all the possible things that could go wrong rather than using a little initiative to see the benefit of what could be a very helpful amendment.
	On Amendment No. 34, I record my gratitude to the Minister for his helpful letter regarding trading by fire authorities. I am glad that the Government recognise that, where authorities have been charging with an element of profit, they have been acting in good faith. However, although I recognise the arguments concerning the difference between charging and trading, I am concerned that the Government are still ultimately stifling innovation and alternative sources of funding among fire authorities, as well as creating an unfair system that restricts the capacity of certain authorities to charge—compared with the entrepreneurs of Essex to whom I referred earlier. We should remember that moneys gained from charging are ploughed straight back into existing budgets, helping many severely stretched budgets.
	Amendment No. 35 is simply designed to increase the breadth of consultation that the Secretary of State must undertake before granting any powers of charging, especially to the groups that will be most affected. Unlike the Minister, I do not think that that means the whole country. The Minister promised in Committee to send me a list of consultees, but I have not received it. Perhaps that is my fault. I do not think that this minor amendment is too onerous. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with charging, which I know is a sensitive issue. Taken together they would constrain charging. Amendment No. 32 is phrased in the same terms as Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. We do not consider that Section 93 or a provision in similar terms would be a suitable substitute for the charging provisions that exist in Section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is why we have brought forward Clause 19.
	The first effect of Amendment No. 32, as a mirror of Section 93, would be to restrict the services for which authorities can charge to those which they are not obliged to provide. At present, the only response that authorities are obliged to provide is to fire calls, although in practice they tend to respond to a range of requests. We have made provision in the Bill for that situation to change and have imposed additional response requirements on the service in respect of traffic accidents and other non-fire incidents.
	Amendment No. 32 is also likely to have the possibly unintended effect of frustrating the provisions of Clause 19(4). The latter is designed to enable authorities to recover the cost of dealing with an incident from a responsible third party in circumstances where it may not be appropriate to seek to charge the person to whom the supply of the service was made.
	Amendment No. 33 would require an authority to compile an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it might seek to levy a charge that had been specified by order. It would also require an authority to specify the circumstances in which it would charge nothing for one of those services. That is an over-restrictive approach and one that might constrain an authority's ability to exercise its discretion appropriately.
	We accept that noble Lords opposite wish to see some clear public statement by an authority, perhaps on an annual basis, about how it will go about determining a charge and possibly even what the charge might be in terms of an hourly rate. Some authorities already do that. I do not know what the entrepreneurs in Essex do. I know that they make a lot of money, but I do not know how they go about that. We would be quite happy to see such action by authorities become the norm. Indeed, we suggested in the consultation document some bases on which the charge may be calculated and we see no reason why an authority should not be open about the methodology that it has adopted. However, to require a detailed explanation of how and when the authority will exercise its inherent discretion is a burdensome approach, and we do not want to constrain that discretion.
	Amendment No. 34 would remove from the Bill the requirement that the charges set by an authority do no more than recover the full annual cost of providing the service in question. The wording of Section 3 of the 1947 Act caused confusion among authorities about the extent of their powers. To claim that there was unanimity of opinion would be to ignore the evidence submitted by the fire and rescue authorities during the consultation exercise, the results of which will be published soon.
	Greater clarity is needed and that is achieved by the clause as we have drafted it. However, we have no wish to create financial difficulties for authorities that have become accustomed, in good faith, to recovering a profit component on some of their activities. For that reason, we announced a concession in Grand Committee when we considered what was then Amendment No. 65. When an authority recovers an element of profit on a given service on or before 1 April this year, the concession will enable them to continue doing so for up to two years after the introduction of a freedoms and flexibilities package under the fire comprehensive performance assessment. That will be achieved by means of an order under Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2003 and will require authorities to conduct their trading activities through a company. Authorities will not be allowed to expand into new areas of trading under the concession, but may be allowed to do so if they achieve a favourable comprehensive performance assessment.
	When an authority fails to achieve favourable assessments within two years, any trading order under this concession will be withdrawn. I wrote to noble Lords with further details of the concession following Grand Committee and will be happy to do so again.
	Amendment No. 35 is unreasonably onerous, because it is very difficult to know how to draw the line at those people "likely" to be affected. As drafted, it could arguably require the Secretary of State to seek out and consult everyone in England, or anyone who might find themselves requiring the assistance of the fire service while in England, on the terms of any order he proposed to make. That is excessive. The requirement to consult that is in the Bill is in terms that are tried and tested.
	The Government published a consultation document on our proposals for the first order in February and delivered it to a wide range of consultees. There was considerable media interest in the document, so many members of the public were aware of its existence. However, we have received less than 50 responses in total to the consultation. Of those, none was from members of the public.
	It is also disappointing to note that only 25 of the 47 fire and rescue authorities in England considered this matter to be worthy of their comment. We expect to publish an analysis of the responses during August—this will necessarily be done during the Recess.
	We have made it clear that any proposal to expand the scope of the charging regime, as detailed in the February document, would be the subject of a fresh consultation. That might, of course, make the other 22 fire and rescue authorities wake up to something that affects them.
	I hope that I have given a fairly considered response to each of the amendments. As I say, the results of the consultation exercise will be published and, if need be, we will go through a further one later this year.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I still think that there is little to be desired from the whole process of charging and consultation. None of us wants to charge for services that should be supplied to the public, but there are elements that could help the fire service when it provides services for which the public would not mind paying. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the fire authorities should publish that, and I hope that the Government will encourage it. It would clarify the position on charging as far as the public were concerned.
	We thanked the Minister for his concession of at least two years for authorities that were doing things that made a profit and helped their budgets. Obviously, if they lost that profit, the taxpayer would have to replenish the budget, which is surely not desirable.
	There needs to be absolute clarity about charging and trading. We will study the Minister's answers, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Revocation) Order 2004

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 8 June and discussed in the other place on 29 June. It will remove the current statutory limit on the number of take-offs and landings of passenger aircraft at Stansted airport each year and place control of such matters within the local planning framework.
	As it stands today, Stansted is unique among airports in having a PATM limit set by Parliament. Its first limit was set in 1987, the second in 1996 and the current limit of 185,000 PATMs in 1999—all by order.
	Noble Lords might be aware that planning permission for Stansted airport to expand to handle 25 million passengers per annum was granted by Uttlesford District Council in May of last year. As a condition of the planning permission, the council imposed an air transport movement limit of 241,000, covering both cargo and passenger movements.
	The White Paper The Future of Air Transport made it clear that the Government believe it is preferable for controls of this kind to be agreed locally and that there is no longer a good case for use of the statutory limit on PATMs at Stansted.
	We propose to revoke this order now because Stansted is already operating near to the current limit of 185,000 PATMs. It handled more than 160,000 in 2003. Action is needed now to allow the airport to handle the number of movements granted in planning consent by Uttlesford District Council.
	As part of the process to revoke the PATM limit, on 28 May we completed six weeks of public consultation. Around 100 interested parties were consulted. They included the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the airport operator, operators of aircraft likely to be affected by the order, organisations representing operators of aircraft, local authorities around the airport and other interested parties. From the responses received, there was very strong support for revoking the limit, and no support for retaining the current limit.
	One particular issue concerning the planning conditions imposed by Uttlesford in its 2003 planning consent emerged during the consultation. A condition in the planning approval states that the new ATM limit of 241,000 does not come into force until the completion of an extension to the existing terminal. BAA has yet to begin work on this development.
	With reference to this, some consultees expressed concern that the removal of the PATM limit now could result in a situation in which no movement limit exists at all. To avoid such a situation, BAA has agreed to enter into a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The conditions of the agreement are: air transport movements at Stansted will be limited to 241,000 ATMs per year—that is, in line with the planning consent; the agreement will take effect immediately when the PATM limit is revoked by Parliament; and the agreement will continue until the ATM conditions in Uttlesford's planning consent have been effected by opening the terminal extension or if further planning permission has been granted for air transport movements in excess of 241,000—that is, unless the local planning authority and the airport operator agree a different arrangement at a later stage.
	I can confirm that BAA has now finalised its unilateral Section 106 undertaking. It has been received by Uttlesford District Council and placed on its planning register. The unilateral undertaking will ensure that once the statutory limit has been revoked, there will still be control on the number of PATMs until such time as the conditions in the airport's planning consent come into force.
	This draft order will revoke all three orders that have been made relating to Stansted's PATM limit since 1987. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. I draw attention to the fact that we are not talking about the extension of Stansted airport, which is contained in the recently published White Paper. That refers to an entirely different development and is not the subject of tonight's debate.
	We are reasonably happy that within the present planning arrangements, everything that needs to be done has been done. Our main reservation is the fact that the Government are involved in a large expansion of air transport without considering global warming as seriously as they might. As we have already heard in the House today, that is one of the greatest threats to our society.
	I have one simple question for the Minister. I shall not contest the order, although it was contested in another place—I think very largely due to the strength of opinion of local Members about the expansion of Stansted airport, which is not really the subject of the debate. Stansted is used by many airline operators, and they are cutting prices all the time. They are cutting prices by all manner of means, such as making passengers carry their own bags on board—which might do them good—getting rid of the use of the hold, and getting rid of refreshments.
	I am concerned about whether those airlines are not only breaching any safety regulations—which the CAA control pretty strongly—but whether it is possible for the airport operator to keep a strong hold on the way in which aircraft land and take off, the extent to which airlines comply with the noise limits and the hours limits, and those things that affect the local environment. It is important that they stick to the agreed flight paths, that they do not go outside the envelope of the airport, and that they behave themselves. Will the Minister address those issues when he replies?

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He is right to say that this is not about the expansion of the runways at Stansted, but about the expansion of the use of Stansted. In a way it is a pity that the Government have come forward with this order now, so that we do not see a totally coherent airport policy. When will this draft order come into effect? When will we see more flights operating from Stansted? What is the timetable?
	It is not an entirely satisfactory system. There has been some local consultation, but it was not really terribly satisfactory. A number of people outside the area, who are nevertheless close to it, have not been properly consulted. No doubt such things will become more apparent as the Government move further with their airport policy. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a little more understanding about when the order will come into effect and when we will start to see an increase in the number of flights.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend correctly stated that the order will bring Stansted into line with all other airports, which is highly commendable. The order will also apply to freight aircraft as well as passenger aircraft. My noble friend said that there are currently 160,000 PATMs, but he did not mention the number of current freight movements. Has he any figures for that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for doing what I was not able to do in opening, when my job is to commend the order. He kindly put the order into context, which is important.
	It is not for me to anticipate that people might stray on to wider issues, but there could have been a danger of that had there not been a salutary warning. This order is not about the expansion of Stansted airport. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend asked when we will see the effect of this order. At present, Stansted is increasing its traffic. It was 160,000 PATMs last year; it is up to 185,000 this year. The limit that Uttlesford local authority has imposed is 241,000. I do not know the rate of expansion, or how soon Stansted will arrive at the maximum limit under the agreement that is in place with the local authority. Noble Lords can see the rate of expansion.
	I suppose my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—he asked me to comment on broad airline policy—is that we clearly do see Stansted expanding its capacity. It is doing so rapidly, within those limits. I have the great advantage of living not a huge distance from Stansted, so I am mindful of local concerns about increasing traffic. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Simon for indicating that the more anti-social hours used by flights tend to be for freight aircraft rather than passenger aircraft. That is not least because arriving at Stansted unduly late at night still raises acute problems for passengers if they want to get anywhere else.
	Local people have responded in exactly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, thought that they ought to; they have separated this issue from the really big, contentious issue about a second runway at Stansted, which would clearly be the route towards very considerable expansion indeed. That is within the framework of the Government's White Paper on the necessary expansion of south-east airports, against what we all recognise as a pressing demand from our fellow citizens. No one will underestimate the extent to which passenger movements have been increasing in recent years. They show no sign of being blighted by all the dire warnings that are given from time to time, either when enormous delays occur at airports, or some aircraft get into such obvious difficulty that we all thank Heavens that we are not on them.
	The pressure is there for airport expansion, and no one will deny that. The Government are not building on demand, nor are we taking the view that the issues do not have to be put within the framework of a coherent policy. However, we are not blinding ourselves to the obvious fact that the demand for air travel is increasing at a significant rate. We would be failing in our duty if we did not realise that Stansted had a contribution to make.
	The main local opposition group, Stop Stansted Expansion, did not respond to the consultation. It will probably have taken the view that the local authorities will have responded; there are four local authorities in addition to Uttlesford, which is central as the holder of the planning permission. Local authorities were representing the position clearly. Furthermore, the members of Stop Stansted Expansion are far too sensible to fail to recognise that this is not about expansion; it is about transferring a planning permission from Parliament to the locality, which is in the general interest of all local people.
	On the general topic of when flights will increase, we expect BAA to apply for further planning permissions next year. We cannot predict what numbers will be involved, and we therefore cannot predict when the 241,000 limit that is imposed at present will be reached. We can, however, predict that that will be a matter for the local planning authority at that stage and not for Parliament.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, international conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between countries which are party to the conventions. In this country, the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 prescribes the detail of the various documents, fees, minimum ages, enforcement arrangements and so on, which apply to our residents who wish to drive abroad, and visitors from abroad who wish to drive here.
	The order which is now before the House is necessary to cover the costs of issuing the necessary documentation, to remedy anomalies which have come to light in relation to vehicle types driven by visitors and to bring the holders of vocational licences issued in Guernsey into line with those from Jersey and the Isle of Man by allowing them to drive British registered large vehicles during visits here.
	International driving permits and international certificates for motor vehicles are documents which may be issued to drivers who are visiting a country outside the European Economic Area. IDPs translate details of a driving licence into several languages, enabling foreign authorities to interpret the entitlements held, validity periods, age and identity of the holder. ICMVs translate details of British registered vehicles being taken temporarily to another country.
	The issue of IDPs is a statutory function deriving from international obligations; namely, the Paris Convention of 1926 and the Geneva Convention of 1949. This function is currently delegated by the Secretary of State for Transport to the motoring organisations in Great Britain; namely, the Automobile Association, Royal Automobile Club Motoring Services and Green Flag. Those motoring organisations have applied to raise the fee for IDPs and ICMVs from £4 to £5.50, to cover increased administrative costs of issuing the documents. That is a substantial part of the order.
	The anomaly which requires remedy relates to the types of British-registered vehicles which non-European Economic Area licence holders may drive during visits to Great Britain. Non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain may drive for a period of 12 months from the date they last entered the United Kingdom on the strength of a valid national driving licence issued in their country of normal residence. Such licence holders may drive small vehicles such as cars and motorcycles, medium-sized goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes and minibuses with up to 16 passenger seats, provided they are not driven for hire or reward.
	Conversely, non-EEA licence holders who are resident here are restricted to driving only small vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes and with up to eight passenger seats, such as motorcycles, cars and small vans, during their first 12 months of residence. What we are seeking to do is to correct that anomaly, thereby restricting non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain to driving small vehicles. They will still, however, be allowed to drive larger vehicles which have been registered outside Great Britain but which they have driven into the country. That provision is already granted to drivers of large vehicles during visits.
	Visitors with Guernsey driving licences may only drive large vehicles during visits if they have brought the vehicle into Great Britain; unlike their counterparts from Jersey and the Isle of Man, they cannot drive British registered large goods vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles. An assessment undertaken by officials in 2001 considered the testing standards in place in Guernsey for these drivers and found them to be comparable to those in the UK. That is why we are proposing that Guernsey large vehicle licence holders be allowed to drive British registered large vehicles during their visits to Great Britain, giving them the same status as holders of such licences from Jersey or the Isle of Man. As noble Lords will recognise, a terrible anomaly will have been rectified. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this seemingly very important amendment to the regulations. One cannot say very much about it. The fee charged does not seem very much to me but it appears to satisfy the motoring organisations—the AA, the RAC and Green Flag. If they are satisfied and believe that is enough money, I do not believe that we should argue with them—let them get on with it!
	I am happy with the regulations for the people from Guernsey who have satisfied the standards in their own country. They are probably enforced more strongly than the regulations in this country—which are not enforced. I have frequently crossed swords with the Minister on that matter, but it is a debate for another time.
	I am slightly less at ease about the non-EEC licence holders, because in the figments of one's imagination one can imagine people from Outer Mongolia driving fairly large vehicles on the roads here with perhaps a lesser degree of care than the Government would be comfortable with. However, that is my only reservation. This is not an area in which I have great expertise, and I am quite content to let the order pass.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—and grateful for his forbearance, because I had foreshadowed the possibility that he would berate me again about enforcement operations as regards large vehicles. That would have occupied us for a considerable period of time, given his eloquence and great knowledge on the issue.
	I am happy to agree with what the noble Lord has recognised—that the motoring organisations are scarcely being exploitative when charging a fee of such a modest amount. It is merely there to meet their costs for a service that they provide.
	The anomaly as regards Guernsey arose from the obvious point that we were not satisfied about the standard of testing there at the time when the Isle of Man and Jersey were benefiting from the general arrangements. That is why Guernsey is an exception. We are happy to be putting that right.
	The only other point that I make about the order as a whole is obvious enough. We may have our reservations about standards elsewhere, but the House will recognise that on the whole it is of great benefit to our fellow citizens if we can achieve reciprocity in the world. It may be that we have to watch with care; as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, often says, we have to look with care at the standards of the vehicles brought into the country. However, that is a subject for another debate. This order is about fulfilling due obligations with regard to reciprocity and the minor extension of the fee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2004

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to introduce the regulations. Their purpose is to reflect a specific recent development in the National Health Service relating to hospital treatment overseas.
	The Government are committed to expanding the NHS more than ever before to give faster treatment and greater choice to patients. As part of this, we are making further use of spare capacity in overseas health systems in two ways. First, we are bringing overseas teams to England to optimise the use of spare physical capacity where it is available. Secondly, primary care trusts can now directly purchase treatment overseas from some of the best hospitals at affordable prices when they believe that that is in the best interest of their patients. This offers a means of reducing waiting times and extending choice for patients.
	Several hundred patients have already chosen to go abroad for treatment under these arrangements—mostly to Belgium, Germany and France—for major joint replacements and cataract operations. Those are the two major categories of healthcare abroad. Their experience of the overseas hospitals was very positive, and the Department of Health therefore intends to continue the arrangements. My ministerial colleagues there see overseas treatment as a relatively short-term necessity while domestic capacity is developed, but the option is likely to be needed for some time.
	Of course, some of those who are waiting for treatment and who are offered the chance of having it overseas will be social security claimants. While waiting, they may not be so ill that they have to claim an incapacity benefit; they could instead be receiving pension credit, income support or jobseeker's allowance. For example, they may be waiting for a hip replacement when their job does not require them to have mobility. The rules for these benefits normally restrict entitlement when outside Great Britain and so some adjustment is necessary to enable them to make use of these NHS opportunities with the minimum of inconvenience and at no risk to their benefits.
	We therefore gave a commitment that people claiming any of the three benefits I have mentioned would be able to retain their entitlement when abroad for treatment arranged through the NHS. Pension credit is a new benefit and we were in time to include an appropriate provision in the original regs which came into force last year. IS and JSA are older benefits, which means amending their existing regulations.
	In the case of JSA, this is quite complicated because in normal circumstances JSA claimants must be in Great Britain, must be available for and capable of work, and must actively seek work each week. Patients who go abroad for hospital treatment would not be able to satisfy any of those four conditions. However, the Jobseekers Act enables circumstances to be prescribed in which jobseekers can be treated as satisfying them, and the existing JSA regs already set out a number of circumstances. For example, jobseekers are treated as available and actively seeking work while engaged in emergency duties for the benefit of others, such as being part-time firemen.
	These amendment regulations rely on the same powers. First, they treat jobseekers as being in Great Britain when they are temporarily absent to receive hospital treatment provided under the revised NHS legislation. Secondly, they make this an additional circumstance in which jobseekers are treated as capable of work, provided that they have notified the Secretary of State in advance that this is their wish. Finally, the regs make the necessary cross-references so that jobseekers are treated as available and actively seeking work when abroad.
	The IS rules also require people to be in Great Britain, although a limited exception is made for people receiving medical treatment. As that applies only to people claiming on grounds of incapacity, and then only when the treatment is for the incapacity that caused the claim in the first place, there is a risk that other IS claimants, such as lone parents, could lose entitlement if they took advantage of the NHS's new arrangements. These regs avoid that risk by adding a new circumstance in which all IS recipients can be treated as being in Great Britain, again linking it to the receipt of hospital treatment under the revised NHS legislation.
	Subject to parliamentary approval of the draft amending regs, we propose to introduce these changes nationally from 4 October 2004. These draft regs ensure that benefit claimants are not excluded or placed at a disadvantage compared with other NHS patients. I can confirm that the Social Security Advisory Committee has decided that it does not want the draft regulations to be formally referred to it. I am also able to confirm that, in my view, these provisions are compatible with the ECHR. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. However, there are one or two points about it that I find a little puzzling. She referred to the type of operation that might be involved as either a joint replacement operation or a cataract operation. I remember, in my former constituency, that we had a rather long waiting list for cataract operations. A hotel was taken over for a week and we cleared the waiting list in a very short time. I gather that the total number of cases we are dealing with this evening is only 850, and presumably not all of those are joint replacements. I therefore find it surprising that cataract patients have to be away for any length of time at all. As I understand it, it is almost a daytrip operation.
	Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of the split between cataract and joint operations. If we are going to pay for people to go away and have cataract operations and then bring them back, I should think that it must be much more cost effective to have them done here under the NHS rather than abroad. If it is a major operation abroad, one may deplore the lack of facilities here but understand that it might help to relieve the waiting list situation.
	I am also slightly puzzled that this arrangement is apparently going out under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I thought that the idea that people could go abroad for treatment was a comparatively recent innovation and not covered by legislation as early as 1977 or 1990. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify that point.
	I understand the arguments on income support, but I am rather more puzzled by the question of the jobseeker's allowance. If a jobseeker is abroad, he is not able to seek a job. We are effectively deeming him able to do so. Can the noble Baroness remind me whether the job-seeking operation is a continuous operation or whether it matters if there is a slight drop in the payment of the jobseeker's allowance while the person concerned is abroad? I do not recall.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when the noble Lord uses the word "operation" does he mean a medical operation or the operation of JSA?

Lord Higgins: Both, my Lords. As the person is clearly not available for work and is not seeking work in the period when he is abroad for the medical operation, I am not clear why he should continue to have jobseeker's allowance. I can see that he might require income support, but I do not see why he needs jobseeker's allowance.
	I have always understood very clearly that, on the whole, the taxpayer does not have to pay twice for the same thing. We have previously debated whether people's benefits go on while they are in hospital. I am not clear why in this case a jobseeker should continue to get jobseeker's allowance if he is abroad having this operation. Similarly, I am not clear why he is able to obtain accommodation in the overseas hospital and transport costs—for both of which, presumably, the British taxpayer is paying—while being paid his income support or jobseeker's allowance. There appears to be a duplication, and that would seem to breach what I had always understood to be a fairly basic rule, that one does not pay twice for the same thing.
	I do not want to weary the House longer. However, it seems that this particular proposition, which appears to operate on an extraordinarily small scale—less than 1,000 per year all told—leads to so many complications. Given the Chancellor's Statement earlier today, one would have thought that it would be possible to increase resources in the NHS without the necessity for these regulations and the arrangements that flow from them. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify those points.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. I have one small quibble. Straightaway, she put a bullet through the one fox that runs around this subject; that is, why we must go abroad for such services. The Minister said that that was unfortunate and that, although we currently have to do so, the hope was that the situation would improve in future. In truth, that is the real political point. The NHS does not currently have enough resources. We can later argue about organisation and funding. However, it would be rather unfair to have a go at the Minister in that regard because she does not have responsibility for those matters.
	If we do have to go abroad, the regulations are absolutely vital. If people lost certain benefits that they were on, we could damage, for instance, their status, their ability to maintain a home and so on. We have argued about hospitals; if they lost such rights, that could be crippling. If we have structural problems that require people to go abroad for treatment, we must allow those people to maintain their benefits and income stream so that they do not end up losing housing and so on. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, on which I sit, said that the regulations were not worthy of the special attention of the House, and I have no intention of breaking with its views.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the questions raised. I am grateful for the response of noble Lords, which was one of puzzlement rather than hostility or dispute.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was absolutely right; I entirely agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to the figure of 850; of that, perhaps two handfuls of people are on JSA or IS. By definition, they will probably be over the pension age. Older people tend to need help with cataract problems or have hip replacements. Frankly, it is not worth the hassle of trying to get them on to a different benefit for three, five or 10 days, or for a fortnight. Currently, one can be on JSA for up to a fortnight with temporary sickness and on IS for up to four weeks. For the most part, that should cover such situations anyway. We do not want people who might have follow-up problems—through anaesthesia, for example—to be caught and find, while they are in Belgium or France, that their benefits had run out. We do not expect many people to be affected.
	We hope and expect this to be a sharply diminishing problem. Whereas in March 2002 the maximum in-patient wait was 15 months, by March 2004 it was down to nine months. That is a function of the length of waiting times. For people who so choose, they may prefer the option of speedier treatment by going to Belgium, Germany or France to waiting for local treatment, particularly in the south-east. Guy's and St Thomas's conduct bulk purchases on behalf of those scattered individuals.
	The noble Lord was absolutely right: increasingly, the NHS is bringing doctors to the UK, particularly for cataract treatment, for example. That is a more cost effective and desirable route in the eyes of many patients. Three-quarters of referrals abroad have, I believe, been for orthopaedic cases, which require bed space and recovery time in a way that cataract surgery often does not. Again, we hope to bring the figure down sharply. We hope that there will be a diminishing use of overseas resources. For the time being, it a sensible way to use surplus capacity of a very high standard abroad at broadly comparable costs. I believe that that adds to patients' choices.
	I hope that I have addressed all the queries raised by noble Lords. If I have overlooked any, I invite them to nudge me. Basically, we are dealing mainly with elderly patients and we do not expect more than a couple of handfuls to be on benefit. We do not believe that it is worth trying to alter benefits during the short time of interruption. If people return and need an extensive period of convalescence, they would go on to incapacity benefit anyway. If a short temporary period is involved, it is simpler and cleaner merely to treat the person as though they were having NHS surgery at home. Effectively, that is all that we are doing. It seems a sensible, non-bureaucratic way of coping with what we hope will be a temporary response to a temporary problem.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.33 p.m.]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 36:
	After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
	"LIMITATION ON POWER TO AUTHORISE CHARGING
	(1) An order under section 19 may not authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for—
	(a) extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of fires;
	(b) rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents or protecting people from serious harm in the event of road traffic accidents; or
	(c) discharging any function relating to emergencies conferred on it by the Secretary of State under section 9.
	(2) An order under section 19 may authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for the provision of emergency medical assistance only in circumstances where a National Health Service Ambulance Trust is authorised to charge for such provision."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to return to the sentiment behind Amendment No. 36 as I am still unsure about aspects of the Government's thinking. In order to save time I am speaking to the amendment having accepted some of the arguments against parts of it. For example, I understand the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, against subsection (2) of my amendment. I am glad that the Government have gone further than this amendment would allow by precluding all charging for emergency medical assistance.
	However, we seek reassurance that the situation will not arise where a person will pay for emergency medical assistance according to whether the fire or ambulance service is the first to arrive on the scene of a road traffic accident. I realise that this question is primarily about whether the scope of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 is pertinent. The Minister did not answer that point on the previous occasion.
	I also understand the arguments deployed against adopting subsection (1)(c) of my amendment as various incidents may fall within Clause 9 that require charging such as a chemical spill by a commercial operation.
	Finally, I appreciate the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that detailed why subsection (1)(a) of my amendment would be unnecessary. This leaves subsection (1)(b) of my amendment where I am not clear about the Government's reasoning. I understand that the order-making provision of Clause 19 will allow the Government to ensure that there are no moves towards charging for road traffic accidents without further consultation while preserving the principle of being able to charge for these incidents if it is appropriate.
	Clause 8 makes rescuing people from road traffic accidents a core function of the new fire and rescue service, however, so why would the Government not want to reflect that in a Clause 19 order by ruling out charging for road traffic accident rescues? A point to bear in mind is that the amendment would not rule out charging for certain non-rescue actions associated with dealing with road traffic accidents. It would simply ensure that the rescue of people from life-threatening situations should not be a chargeable activity.
	I hope that the Minister can address our concerns. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the proposed new clause in the amendment would extend the restrictions on the services for which a charge might be made by excluding all the emergency statutory functions on an authority.
	With the passage of time, it is true that the fire and rescue service has acquired a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with the effects of road traffic accidents, yet there has been no obligation on the service to render rescue assistance. That is amazing, really. We have brought forward a new duty for the service to respond to such incidents in Clause 8. At the same time, we have recognised that fire authorities already have a power to charge for dealing with non-fire assistance rendered at such an incident, although they appear not to have used it.
	The ODPM Committee report on the fire service, published earlier this year, noted the potential for authorities to recover the costs of dealing with traffic accidents from compensators in a manner similar to that which exists in the National Health Service. That scheme recovers flat-rate charges for treatment received in an NHS hospital, and later this year will levy a charge for ambulance conveyance to hospital for such treatment. Further work needs to be done on how any such scheme might operate for the fire and rescue service, and the impact that it would have on authorities, the insurance industry and the public. In the light of that, it would not be appropriate to close off the possibility of charging for road traffic accidents in the way countenanced by the proposed new clause.
	The range of incidents that may fall within Clause 9 is not confined to the new terrorist threat. It can include major incidents of flooding or damage caused by the accidental or sometimes negligent discharge of a large volume of harmful chemicals by a company. Proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment would mean that such incidents would be excluded from the scope of charging. We want to know whether it is right, for example, that a major commercial undertaking could cause huge disruption and escape the cost of putting it right. Regrettably, the drafting of the proposed new clause is as defective now as it was when tabled in Grand Committee as Amendment No. 115. It does not remove Clause 19(3), so would leave us with two conflicting provisions on emergency medical assistance. Amendment No. 36 would also prevent charging for fires that occurred at sea or under the sea outside the jurisdiction of any fire authority. The ability to charge for dealing with such incidents was inserted into the 1947 Act by Section 2 of the Marine Safety Act 2003, at the specific request of marine salvage operators. They had been concerned that there was no incentive for authorities to deal with incidents that occurred outside their jurisdiction, and so were prepared to meet the costs of such intervention in the hope of reducing the losses incurred. It would be a retrograde step if we took that provision out, having just put it into legislation.
	I appreciate that the area is complicated, and that not much is known about it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured. We are not looking to be onerous, but there are circumstances in which it would be quite right for the fire and rescue service to make a charge for the services that it provides.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Before the dinner break, I spoke to a group of amendments pointing out the areas in which one could charge. If you were locked out of your house, for instance, and telephoned the fire service asking to be let in, perhaps there would be a charge. A fire engine might go out with four or five people on it to let you into the house. However, if there were a major road accident in which someone was seriously injured, one would not expect the fire service to arrive and ask the person to produce a credit card before receiving help.
	There are potential areas from which one can help fire service budgets, but I remain confused on the Government's thinking. The Minister agrees that there are incidents for which charges could be made; for instance, it should be possible to recoup costs from a large lorry spilling sulphuric acid on the road. I hope that before Third Reading the Minister will be able to clarify the Government's thinking on charging, otherwise we might have to explore the matter further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 [Fire and Rescue National Framework]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 10, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 is an important amendment regarding the status of the framework. I think that last time we were in clear disagreement about what a framework or guidelines mean. Perhaps we are all agreed that this was a debate about the balance between local and national.
	The framework is a key document that will define how fire and rescue authorities discharge their functions and, by virtue of provisions later in the Bill that require compliance, it will allow the Secretary of State to dictate the blueprint for the operation of the fire and rescue services. That is already too far down the line of undermining the principle of local service accountability and too much centralisation.
	The amendment would remove the obligation for the framework to set out priorities and objectives for authorities and the discharge of their functions. As I said last time, it is the proper role of Parliament to set out the functions of fire and rescue authorities in primary legislation, as this Bill does. The Secretary of State already has substantial powers, particularly under Clauses 9, 14 and 17, to direct how those functions will be discharged. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to authorities,
	"in connection with the discharge of any of their functions".
	That should be a sufficient level of intervention. The discharge of their proper functions must be a matter for local fire and rescue authorities rather than something to be defined in exact detail by the Secretary of State.
	The problem with the national framework is that it is only at the beginning of its life, and it already mocks the idea of a partnership between local fire authorities and central government because it is full of mandatory requirements. I fear that this will get worse over time. I disagree with the right honourable Nick Raynsford on this matter. The amendment would not sink the framework. The framework can provide strategic leadership without central diktat, and this amendment would help to achieve that. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady Maddock pointed out to me, it is consistent that we should do so when we did not support the Conservative amendment on targets. Perhaps there is a little inconsistency between this amendment and that one and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, might like to comment on that in winding up.
	This is far too meddlesome a provision. I do not disagree with some sort of framework being developed through consultation. However, I do not believe that having a statutory framework which deals with the matters set out in Clause 21(2), including "priorities and objectives" which should be sorted out by the individual fire authorities working out how they will go about achieving their core functions, is the way forward. And that is despite the Government's Amendment No. 38, which we shall debate in a moment, under which an order will be unamendable. In our view, the framework—the subject of it—will have to be minimalist indeed for this to be the right approach.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is not very fair, rubbishing the amendment in the next group before I have had the opportunity to move it! Before we reach the Government's "supreme" Amendment No. 38, we think that to advocate that the strategic priorities should not be set out at a national level first would not be sensible and secondly, goes against the respected recommendations of Sir George Bain and his colleagues, who advocated stronger strategic leadership of the fire and rescue services from central government. That was a point that they made.
	Indeed, when examining the Bill, the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that the services need strong political leadership from the Government to ensure the successful implementation and management of change during a potentially very turbulent period. That is the considered view of Sir George Bain and his colleagues and the Select Committee in the other place. I am not sure why the noble Lords and the noble Baroness opposite wish to remove the provision which is aimed at fulfilling that recommendation.
	I must rebut some of the things which have been said. The accusation that the Government are increasingly prescriptive and not allowing local discretion is false. I remind the House that we have done more than any other government since 1947 in allowing the fire and rescue authorities discretion in discharging their functions, so our record is a good one. We have repealed Section 19 of the 1947 Act and removed the quite outdated national standards of cover. They have been replaced with local integrated risk management plans, which give local fire and rescue authorities the flexibility they need to meet the needs of their communities. This is the Government letting go. As I clarified at earlier stages of the Bill, the legal status of the national framework is guidance to which the fire and rescue authorities should have regard in carrying out their functions. As such, it does not impose mandatory requirements which would be the consequence of imposing by legislation.
	In order to provide strategic direction for the fire and rescue services, the national framework sets out priorities and objectives. We have said that authorities should consider the majority of these in carrying out their function. However, these priorities and objectives will be delivered locally and will be done differently in different areas of the country. It is a matter for the authorities to decide, not for us to tell them.
	We want to be able to strike the right balance between a strategic overall government direction and decision making by the local authorities. Had the Bain committee and the Select Committee recommended that we provide that leadership, and we did not, we would be "found guilty". We have to get that balance right. We will not be able to prove that we have got it right until it is working, but it would be quite wrong to put all the emphasis on the fire authorities as it would be equally wrong for the Government to take it all on board, make it prescriptive and then enshrine it in legislation. We are not doing that.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I disagree with that totally. James Strachan, the chairman of the Audit Commission, in a major speech on Friday to a local government conference, also disagreed with that totally. We are all agreed that the Government should set out their strategic position and set their priorities. No one disputes that, but, as was said by James Strachan, they take on a managerial role, increasingly in every area of local delivery. One sees that all the time. The comprehensive performance assessment tries to turn out everyone like peas in a pod. I totally disagree with what the Minister said there. I think he must see what is happening on the ground rather than make speeches.
	This is an important amendment. I repeat: no one disagrees that the Government should set their priorities and a strategic framework. However, it should then be left to local authorities to implement it. It might be different in Cornwall from Cumbria, and it should be. Increasingly, we see a blueprint that everywhere should be the same. The Government should recognise that, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that too. The intention behind the amendment is to try to ensure that that happens, not to disagree that the Government should set their priorities. We might have to return to this at a future stage. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
	"(6) The Framework as first prepared, and any revisions to the Framework which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant, have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order."

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in Amendment No. 38 the Government seek to acknowledge and address the concerns that noble Lords raised in Grand Committee about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework.
	Noble Lords were concerned that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. This amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State could introduce any "significant" changes to the framework.
	The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework. It also addresses the first part of Amendment No. 39, which likewise requires that the framework be subject to a negative resolution statutory instrument.
	However, Amendment No. 39 also goes on to require that all revisions to the national framework are laid before Parliament. That would be impractical. The framework may need to be altered in all manner of minor ways to correct errors, to reflect changes in other guidance documents and legislation and to refer to examples of best practice as they emerge from the fire and rescue authorities. To expect all those changes to be laid before Parliament is, frankly, to misunderstand the role of Parliament. I was going to intervene in the previous contribution, simply to point out that the chairman of the Audit Committee has his job to do and that the Government have their job to do. We know where the dividing line is.
	The Government's amendment clearly states that where changes to the national framework are significant, Parliament will have the opportunity to consider them. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new requirement of the fire and rescue authorities; so it would be possible to recognise when parliamentary scrutiny was necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his amendment. Despite comments coming from my right, we are prepared to accept it as a reasonable response to the concerns we have raised.
	Both the Government's amendment and the one we tabled, which has now resulted in the government amendment, raise the whole question of the scrutiny of the framework. As I understand the amendment, it means that the framework will come forward as an order before it is implemented. We will have a chance to look at it from top to bottom, which we have not been able to do during the passage of the legislation so far. That should give us quite a few happy hours. I hope that enough time will be set aside for that.
	The matter will be subject to discussion in Parliament both as the framework as first prepared and if there are any revisions. I agree that commas and semicolons should not come into it, but I hope that "significant" represents, as the Minister says, a change in the policy within the framework. I thank the Minister for his response to that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Intervention by Secretary of State]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 11, line 23, leave out from second "to" to end of line 24 and insert "discharge its functions under section 6, 7, 8 or 9"

Baroness Hamwee: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on this issue in Grand Committee, although I rather unkindly but unintentionally pre-empted him in the argument by tabling it in a previous group. When I drafted the amendment I made a note to myself that it was because Clause 22 allows for the Secretary of State to intervene on a fire and rescue authority on the basis of its likely failure to have regard to a non-statutory document.
	We have just discussed the government amendment, which requires the framework to come before Parliament, but as I said when discussing the group before last, we will still be unable to amend it. I do not depart from my view that including the framework in primary legislation approaches the matter in a way with which we are not comfortable, giving it the wrong sort of status—which is not to say, as I said before, that there should not be discussion, consultation and working together to arrive at best practice.
	Clause 22 allows the Secretary of State to intervene in a failing authority, or one that is likely to fail, for reasons that are well rehearsed and into which I shall not go now. We oppose the comprehensive performance assessment process; we oppose intervention. I do not seek to preclude intervention altogether by the amendment, but can we not pin it down to failure on the part of the authority to perform its statutory functions? Here, we have intervention if an authority is likely to fail to act in accordance with the framework. As the previous clause simply states that authorities must have regard to the framework when carrying out their functions, I do not view the two as wholly consistent.
	It is a document to which authorities should have regard, which must mean that there is at least some opportunity for them to say, "That does not really fit with the way in which we are doing things. We have thought about it; we have had regard to it; but we are not going to take it on board—at any rate, in its entirety. Our priorities and objectives are a little different. Our circumstances—the geographic or demographic area in which we work—mean that our priorities should be adjusted a little from those imposed by the framework. We have thought about the guidance in Clause 21(2)(b). We take account of it. But we have a slightly different way to achieve what may be an agreed outcome".
	Or, under Clause 21(2)(c), the framework,
	"may contain any other matter relating to fire and rescue authorities or their functions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
	So we are enabling the Secretary of State to do something about a fire and rescue authority that is likely to fail about which none of us yet knows anything, because the Secretary of State may take a view about what is appropriate some time in the future.
	It may be boring, but I shall say it again: it may be a Secretary of State who is not a member of the Government whom the Minister represents. That enables us to think about the matter a bit more objectively. I wrote down that the Minister cannot in the same breath defend the clause and say that the Bill is not a centralising measure; but he has already done so, so that disproves my point; but he should not put both in the same breath. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, yet again, I stand by everything that I have said about the clause. It is about last resort, reserve powers, which are the action of any responsible government. Frankly, any responsible government consisting of members of other parties would seek such powers—perhaps not in these particular circumstances, but such powers would be natural and useful and any government would be failing in their duty if they did not include them in the Bill.
	The fire and rescue authorities are best value authorities and subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, which empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance and set standards, and to make directions and provisions to provide for the performance of functions. It is precisely because the national framework goes wider than the local delivery of core functions and sets out national and regional performance expectations of critical functions that the intervention powers in Clause 22 are necessary to supplement those available under the existing best value regime.
	Examples of those wider-than-core functions are recorded in paragraph 4.17 of the White Paper Our Fire and Rescue Service and paragraph 2.9 of the draft national framework. They are: ensuring resilience to emergencies; specialist or common services; control rooms; procurement; training strategies and personnel and human resource functions. It is essential that we have those powers, albeit that we hope never to have to use them—that is the whole point. We have said repeatedly that the intervention powers will be used only in accordance with the agreed Local Government Intervention Protocol; it will not be based on a whim or done behind closed doors.
	We want to ensure that the national framework retains flexibility to evolve as the process of modernisation in the fire and rescue services changes and progresses. If intervention powers are tied to functions written into the legislation, we will lose the scope for change and development in the service as the measures begin to take effect.
	The framework will also give practical and current guidance on how authorities should exercise their core functions. It therefore deals with the detail of what the service needs to do to promote public safety, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It will be essential for the Secretary of State, if needs be, to ensure that practical measures outlined in the framework will be implemented. That is a further reason for which we need the reserve powers. Anything less could undermine the whole modernisation agenda. There is a big agenda. These long-stop provisions in the Bill are designed not to be used, but to send a signal that if the modernisation agenda fails or authorities fail the reserve powers are there. That is a strong signal, which, I think, will ensure that the powers will never be used.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are not going to agree on the matter, but I repeat that we have not sought in this amendment to exclude intervention powers. That is important. The Minister suggested that any responsible government would find a means of intervening on a failing authority. If the means as distinct from the functions are so important, they should be contained in the legislation. The point is partly met by having an instrument subject to negative resolution, but only very partially, given that neither House can amend the order. As I said, we will not agree, but this is not the time of night to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 41:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"INTERVENTION CODE
	(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a code specifying the circumstances and the manner in which—
	(a) he may make an order under section 22; or
	(b) he may issue a direction under any provision of this Act.
	(2) The code shall include, in particular, details of—
	(a) the persons or classes of person the Secretary of State will consult before taking the action referred to in subsection (1);
	(b) any other codes of conduct or agreements with any other persons or bodies to which the Secretary of State will have regard when contemplating any action referred to in subsection (1).
	(3) Before publishing the code referred to in subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) all fire and rescue authorities or persons confirmed by them as representing them; and
	(b) all persons or bodies recognised by any fire and rescue authority as representing any group of its employees; and
	(c) any other person who appears to the Secretary of State to have an interest in or to be likely to be affected by the actions referred to in subsection (1)."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I return briefly to the possibility of the Government producing an intervention code. We discussed the matter in Committee in the context of Clause 22. It comes about as a result of the concerns expressed throughout about the amount of power that Clause 22 will give the Secretary of State. I hear very clearly what the Minister says; once again, this is a last-chance saloon or last resort. As we have heard from the Minister, much of the Bill has "last resort" status. It seems a lot of effort to get round to something that the Deputy Prime Minister will do if all else fails.
	Last time, we also discussed the local government intervention protocol and whether it would be sufficient under the CPA and the best-value processes. But we are still very much of the view that whether that is something that will never happen or will happen only on limited occasions, it would be proper for the Government to give an indication of when the intervention powers might apply. Therefore, we propose that an intervention code and guidance specific to Clause 22 be published. That would be appropriate so that people knew exactly what the Secretary of State's powers would be if he felt that he had to intervene under this clause.
	That is what this is all about. We discussed it last time when I think we had some discussion on the local government protocol. But we believe that there should be a code of guidance associated with this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. I understand the concern about Clause 22. There is also concern about other clauses, but I understand this concern in particular. We do not have a great deal of time because we hope to get the Bill on the statute book. In the short time available, I should like to ask my ministerial colleagues to have a quick think about the matter before Third Reading.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 24 [Report]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 12, line 5, at beginning insert "(1)"

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. These are government amendments which commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which the fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once every two years.
	The Bill states that the Secretary of State will report on the national framework from "time to time". That has been interpreted as a slightly vague commitment. While we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process. The amendment was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Grand Committee. I am grateful for their suggestion and no doubt they will be happy to support its inclusion. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we obviously welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44:
	Page 12, line 5, leave out "from time to time"
	Page 12, line 9, at end insert—
	"(2) The first report under subsection (1) must be made before the end of the period of two years starting on the date when the Framework as first prepared is brought into effect.
	(3) Every subsequent such report must be made before the end of the period of two years starting on the date on which the last such report was made."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Equipment, facilities, services and organisations]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Page 13, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert "necessary for the protection of public safety"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 return to Clause 28—fortunately, not the famous Clause 28—which allows the Secretary of State to provide equipment and services to fire authorities, to require their use and to require them to pay for their use. While the Minister explained last time that Clause 28 was principally concerned with centralised procurement, there remains some doubt about the drafting of the clause.
	First, the clause should be better drafted so that it would place less emphasis on the role of the Secretary of State in this process. The powers of the Secretary of State are too widely drawn in that area. Procurement efficiencies do not emanate only from Whitehall. Secondly, I do not agree with the argument advanced by the Minister in Committee that because this concerns the tools to do the job rather than the job itself, public safety does not come into it.
	The point is precisely that if the Secretary of State is to be so heavily involved in procurement, only the grounds of public safety are strong enough. I reiterate that that is because it is the authority's council tax payers, and not the Secretary of State, who should be driving the agenda of efficiency and effectiveness. Saving lives is more important than saving cash.
	Amendment No. 45 is designed to focus the Government's mind on the stated public safety agenda. The Secretary of State may think that it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for him to decide everything. But we disagree.
	As before, Amendment No. 46 repeats the same intentions in relation to Clause 28(2), substituting reference to public safety and giving symmetry with Clause 29, which specifically allows the exercise of powers only in the interests of public safety. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to clarify what Clause 28 is all about. It concerns ensuring that the Fire and Rescue Service has the tools to enable it to carry out its job effectively. Unlike many of the clauses we have discussed, it is not about how the service discharges its functions and it is therefore not appropriate to specify public safety as a requirement. The cost of procuring equipment for the Fire and Rescue Service has an impact on local council tax payers and as such we do have to take into account the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service.
	The Bain review concluded that procurement was one area where significant improvements could be achieved if authorities joined together to pool requirements and expertise. The others were the amalgamation of control rooms, outsourcing or collaboration arrangements for vehicle maintenance and the rationalisation of management and support costs. The review suggested that combined savings in these areas could reach some £42 million over three years.
	I agree with the noble Lord that saving lives is more important than cost, but if it is possible to save money and still save lives, but do so more efficiently, what is the problem with that? Money can be saved. I say that because the current procurement arrangements for the provision of equipment and services specific to the service are often inefficient due to the small scale on which they are carried out. Fire and rescue authorities can currently collaborate to develop standard specifications, reduce specialist administration costs and place bulk orders. However, this potential has been significantly under-exploited despite efforts over the past decade to achieve improvements. This has led to important equipment such as breathing apparatus not being standardised throughout the service.
	Years ago NATO had a problem because its bullets would not fire from the guns being used in all the different countries. It was barmy, but eventually it was sorted out. The idea that breathing apparatus is not standardised throughout the fire service is appalling. There were opportunities to do something about it, but they were not taken. That is not simply a cost implication, it is a question of interoperability. The system must be made more efficient. It is crazy to have breathing apparatus that cannot be swapped or borrowed, or which someone cannot be trained to use. Some kind of standardisation is needed.
	It is not acceptable for that state of affairs to continue. We want to give a push in this area. One option is to use Clause 28(2) to establish a single organisation to be responsible for providing Fire and Rescue Service-specific equipment and services. Any such organisation would sit within the local government family rather than be an arm of central government. I want to make that point absolutely clear. We are working with the Fire and Rescue Service and the Local Government Association to establish how best this could be done. One effect of the amendments would be to prevent the Secretary of State establishing such an organisation.
	We are well aware that the Fire and Rescue Service has a massive amount of expertise on equipment, both British made and that from overseas. I am not criticising by implication any particular purchase of equipment that has been made. But there is a view in terms of being efficient about the use of equipment by benefiting from bulk purchase and so forth.
	We want to make sure that the service is involved at the early stage of any procurement exercise. That has been the case with both the New Dimension programme and the Firelink radio project, and it will be the case with the control rooms project. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is reassured that good sense lies behind what we are proposing in the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this is not the time to discuss the matter. Perhaps we should have another debate on it. There has been much discussion from Gershon, Bain and others over the past few weeks about the potential savings to be made in procurement. For some years I have been involved in local government procurement, handling contracts worth several billion pounds in association with 13 different authorities. I think that the Government are in for a big shock when they find that the savings are not there.
	I agree completely that only one kind of breathing apparatus should be used throughout the UK. However, we have only one manufacturer of fire engines at the moment, so there is little chance of saving any money since no one else makes them; there is only one provider. Similarly, if we move to one kind of breathing apparatus, ultimately there will be only one provider of breathing apparatus, which would have a monopoly. The Government will not make the savings they want because only one body will be bidding for a contract.
	Having been involved in this business for many, many years, I do not see any potential for colossal savings; you cannot save much money on paperclips or paper. You can save money on big equipment, perhaps, and possibly by centralising control rooms—I accept that—but I do not believe that any savings will come from procurement and either Gershon or Bain. I say that after many years of experience in procurement in local government.
	I cannot accept what the Minister said. I still believe that it would be better to leave this to local authorities rather than for Ministers to employ advisers on big salaries to come up with ideas that do not work. Local authorities clubbing together might do better on procurement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
	Clause 31 [Negotiating bodies]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Page 14, line 30, leave out "authorities" and insert "services, such persons being representative of organisations considered by the Secretary of State to be appropriate, and the number of representatives being as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we discussed in some detail the rationale behind the amendment during the Committee stage. I was pleased that there was a degree of shared sentiment on all sides. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to guarantee any party, including the Retained Firefighters Union, a place at the table to negotiate terms and conditions.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in unequivocal terms that it was the Government's wish to see the RFU represented in its own right; this being achieved through agreement. Indeed, we hope too that this can be achieved through agreement. We have said all along that we are adamantly opposed to a greater intervention by the Secretary of State. However, at the moment, the RFU are caught between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the required number of members to guarantee it a place at the negotiating table; and because it does not have a seat at that table it is unlikely to attract the required number of new members.
	As I have said previously, there are significant areas of the country—for example, Devon—that are covered virtually entirely by members of the RFU. Therefore, to have a truly representative negotiating body that covers the whole country, it is important that the RFU is represented.
	We fully understand the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations. However, our previous discussions on this subject took place nearly two months ago in mid May. Can the Minister give the House an update on the position and say whether the Government's view on this important issue has changed since that date? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can be brief. After listening to the noble Lord's speech and reading my notes, I can reassert the Government's position in regard to their intention on the issue of employee representation on a statutory negotiating body.
	Under the current arrangements, the Fire Brigades Union is the only union that sits on the negotiating body for non-principal fire officers. The Bain review recommended that union representation should be widened, and we agreed. We still agree. We believe that a more diverse representation of employee interests in negotiations is important.
	We spelt this out very clearly in the White Paper when we agreed that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union. Clause 31 as currently drafted will allow us to ensure that the range of voices across the workforce is heard at the negotiating table. We meant what we said then, and that remains the position; that is what will happen.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 14, line 32, leave out from first "is" to end and insert "not independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Amendment seeks to leave out that,
	"A chairman"—
	of a negotiating body—
	"is independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is not"—
	an employee as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and to insert the wording that a chairman,
	"is not independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is".
	I could hear the Minister's teasing as I was outlining the amendment.
	There is an important distinction between the two. At the Committee stage when I raised this issue—it did not occur to me until we were in the middle of the debate—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"It could be expressed in the affirmative . . . but we have done it the other way round. It is probably traditional drafting".—[Official Report, 24/5/04; col. GC405.]
	It is not an easy matter to respond to without notice, so I imply no criticism of the noble Lord by bringing it back now. Frankly, if that is traditional drafting, we should change the tradition because the two expressions mean different things.
	As the Bill is expressed, there are only four circumstances in which someone would not be independent—if he is a member or employee, a Minister, a civil servant or someone involved with a member or employee of a body representing the interests of fire and rescue authority employees. That cannot be an exclusive list. For example, what if the person is the leader of a major local authority with strong political views that happen to coincide with those of the government of the day? Would such a person be independent in those circumstances? I know that we will be told about the application of Nolan principles and so forth, and I am not making this as a party political point, because it is not a political point in that sense—nor is it a "lawyer's" point. I invite the Government to reconsider the way that they have gone about expressing this because it is a substantial point. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I skip over this amendment rather quickly, because I can be nicer about the next one. I want to make it absolutely clear. We cannot accept this amendment. We have given assurances, as have my colleagues in another place, that if we had to use these reserve powers we would follow a rigorous appointment process to ensure that the chair would be genuinely independent.
	The Bill clearly states that the chairman—or chairwoman—must be independent. However, were we to accept the amendment, it would leave us with no definition of independence for the purpose of subsection (2). Our legal advice is that that would leave the Government open to litigation on the question of whether a chair or prospective chair was actually independent. There is a legal point here that causes us a problem. However, I can be nicer about the next amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know how nice the Minister will be about the next amendment. One knows independence when one sees it. The restrictive nature of this provision leaves me unhappy, but I will contain myself until the next amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
	"(e) a person who is of a description specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1)"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to add to the definition of lack of independence. It goes against the grain for me to propose an amendment to allow the Secretary of State to make further regulations, but there we are. If it will meet the point, then I will do so. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I will not be accused of misleading the noble Baroness, but this response is nicer. My briefing says "resist" but there is a "but". This is an important matter because there is a problem if one cannot explain clearly in quite short statements to a camera or microphone stuck in front of one's face about the clarity of someone in this position, and one needs to be able to fall back on a process that is rigorous and that people trust. That is what we need to work on.
	Amendment No. 49 would enable the Secretary of State to add further exclusions to the people who are independent for the purpose of subsection (2). As it is currently drafted, four groups of people are named in the Bill as being debarred from holding the position of chair, as they are not independent for this purpose. We previously acknowledged that the Bill does not list all those people whom we would regard as failing to meet the requirement for independence in relation to subsection (2). It would simply not be practical to do that. The Government have, however, given assurances that we want a genuinely independent chair. We have absolutely no doubt that the role requires someone of real competence, stature and independence. Bain said that the chair should be independent, and Ministers have long said the same.
	People outside read what we say, so I want to put it on record that these are reserve powers, and we hope that we will not have to use them. We will not start out with the intention of using these powers, but if we need to draw them down, the Bill requires us to consult before making the regulations. The detailed proposals for the new negotiating body, including the process for appointing the chair, and ensuring that the chair has met the requirement of real independence, would be a matter of regulation.
	I had a brief discussion this morning. I asked if ACAS was involved, because there is no such provision in the Bill. Even after public advertisement, using the Nolan principles, with someone from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments sitting at your side going through the shortlist and interview processes, I would still expect such a person to get the imprimatur of ACAS as being someone qualified and experienced—and knowledgeable about negotiations and the kind of issues about which the body will be talking. That would give that extra stamp of approval.
	We have to go through a process. We cannot go back to the old days and get a list of the great and the good, however qualified they might be. We probably have to do a bit more work, perhaps by letter rather than on the face of the Bill, to make it clear how serious we are that this person will be genuinely independent. Anybody can be independent—we could pick someone at random. A juror is supposed to be independent, chosen at random from the electoral register. We want someone of competence and stature and experience, who will be trusted by all parties concerned. That will not be an easy task, if we ever have to go down this road, simply because the circumstances of making the appointment would mean that the reserve powers have had to be used. So such a person would also need to be something of a diplomat.
	We need to do more work in clarifying what we mean by this. Whether it can be done on the face of the Bill, I do not know, but we will put something extra in writing in the next couple of days to give more of our thoughts on this.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not take issue with him about the need to have someone who is right for the job. Taking advice from ACAS or whoever about whether applicants have the right skills is common sense. It is welcome information, but I am not sure that it actually goes to the point of this amendment or the previous one. However, I shall wait to see what the Minister has to say over the next couple of days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 [Preservation of existing pension scheme]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 18, line 26, at end insert "except in such cases as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations,"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, with Amendment No. 50, we return to the issue of whether Clause 36 unduly restricts the employment of police officers as retained firefighters. This clause penalises the retained part of the fire service in a way inconsistent with the stated aims of the Bill to make the fire and rescue services flexible, effective and diverse.
	In Committee, the Minister said that there would always be a possibility of a conflict between the duties of the police officer and his or her duties as a firefighter. I do not believe that there have been any examples of any conflict of interest caused by this professional relationship, but I am happy to stand corrected on this point if it helps me understand the Government's position. More importantly, however, I do not understand why a reasoned and rigorous process could not be put in place that could effectively prioritise between potentially conflicting roles. Surely that is not too difficult to implement.
	There are many examples in public life where fulfilling the duties of one role ultimately gives way to another. I have no doubt that this choice would have to be made at difficult junctures, such as in emergency situations. That is why a process should be in place so that the police officer and his employers would know exactly where they stood in advance of such a situation arising.
	I am also concerned that Clause 36 seems to restrict all employment with a fire and rescue service, whereas the 1947 Act dealt only with employment with a fire brigade. For example, under Clause 36, a part-time police constable could not be employed as a part-time fire control room operator or in a part-time administrative role. That suggests that the clause is not only an unnecessarily wide prohibition on a police officer's right to secondary employment, but also that there may be circumstances that need not result in what the Government would presumably class as an unacceptable conflict of responsibilities.
	With this amendment, we are seeking to allow the Government an opportunity to specify in regulations the circumstances in which it would be possible to be both a police officer and a fire and rescue service employee, while not compromising the main intention of Clause 36. That is a much fairer and more effective way forward for both individual employees and the retained part of the fire service. It also reflects the fact that many of us are able to navigate potential conflicts of interest in many walks of life without undue restriction. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. The amendment to page 18, line 26, is actually in Clause 35, which is about the preservation of existing pension schemes. The noble Lord's speech related to Clause 36, which talks about the prohibition on the employment of the police. We are on Amendment No. 50. I have a really good speech on the provision of pension schemes, but that was not the issue raised by the noble Lord. I have not got any notes on the prohibition on the employment of police officers.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, would it be preferable to remove it totally today and bring it back at Third Reading? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 43 [Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property;"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with this amendment, we return to the issue of extending the rights of firefighters to effect entry if they reasonably believe a fire may be about to break out. In Committee, the Minister suggested that we contact the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association to back up our argument with examples of where firefighters have been unable to take preventative action that they felt was necessary. We received an interesting response. It is true that they did not have any examples where they felt unable to act, or where they had been subject to a legal challenge. Nevertheless, the association is still of the opinion, as are we, that there may be situations that could render their actions technically illegal, or where erroneous preventative actions could be subject to legal challenge if they are not protected by the amendment.
	I hope that noble Lords will indulge me in returning to this issue, if only in order to extract absolute clarity from the Government. It is a reasonable objective, and in this case some question marks remain over the clause. The last time we discussed the issue, the Minister said that the Government had considered it since it was raised in the Commons, but they had decided against amending the Bill because it was felt that the powers were already there. However, while I accept these arguments are made in good faith, I understand that the wording of Clause 43 and the Minister's reply in Hansard are such that they require an event to have occurred already in order to give rise to a reasonable belief that forced entry will help to protect life and property. That is not the point of our amendment, which includes the sense of a reasonable belief based on what might happen if certain conditions obtain.
	As I was sitting here, I was trying to think of such a situation, and I am afraid that they are all pretty dire. However, one could think of a situation where someone called the fire brigade because they were afraid that a criminal act had been carried out that might end up in a fire; and while there was no fire there, the result of the act was that potentially fire could break out. In those circumstances, the fire brigade would not have the right of entry until the fire had broken out. That is an untenable situation, and it is what this amendment is all about. I am talking about the type of forced entry when it is essential that the fire brigade gets into a building, based on a reasonable belief that a fire was about to break out—although that subsequently proves to be erroneous because a fire does not break out. Could those decisions be subject to a legal challenge, if they were found to be erroneous?
	We seek the assurance that the fire service is protected in taking action in anticipation. The fire service believes that it is not protected. The Bill represents a perfect opportunity to put that right, if that is necessary. I refer to when preventive action might be taken and might result in legal action. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the best way in which to answer the noble Baroness is to give her a couple of examples from my brief.
	Would a firefighter have sufficient powers to break into a house or flat if the householder had been locked out and was concerned that a pan of cooking oil was heating on a cooker? The answer is, yes. The householder, or any person acting on the householder's behalf, would be able to authorise the firefighter to enter the premises. In that example there is no fire but a good prospect that one might break out. That is fairly straightforward.
	My second example is similar. Would firefighters have powers to break into a property if they were tackling a fire in adjoining premises if the fire was in a common roof void or shared roofing material? The answer is, yes. Subsection (1 )(a) allows the firefighter, if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out, to do anything reasonable for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or protecting life or property. If there was a fire in a common roof area then we believe the fire and rescue services would have sufficient powers to enter any premises which might be threatened by the fire to prevent its spread, or equally to help the firefighters tackle the blaze.
	Those are two specific examples, one in which there is clearly no fire and one in which there is a fire that might become bigger. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I had hoped not to have to use this example, but it is the only one I can use and it is germane to the argument.
	Arson is a terrible thing, which sometimes takes place when people shove things through letterboxes and follow it up with an inflammable substance. Under those circumstances, the person concerned or the householder might be inside the property; it might be the middle of the night and they may not know what is going on. Someone passing may see what is happening and call the fire brigade, but there would be nobody outside to authorise the fire brigade to go in. There would potentially be no fire seen at that moment—there may be a time gap. Under those circumstances, would there be an authority to deal with the situation? In that sort of situation, we need to ensure that there is proper cover for the fire service.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a good example, to which I do not have a specific answer. The note that I have says that the incident that a person outside might have seen would probably have been a criminal act, so one would be quite able to summon the police with a 999 call. If that is not sufficient, we shall have to consider the matter.
	The concern has been raised—I am not saying that it has not—and we are not unsympathetic, but the amendment would represent a substantial extension of the powers of entry for firefighters. We remain to be convinced that those extra powers would be needed. In the circumstances of the examples that I gave, the answer was yes. In the example given by the noble Baroness, it is clear that the police could be called, and they could then summon the fire service.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am still not terribly happy with it. We may need to consider whether another amendment could somehow bring in at least a limited authority for this. I am concerned that there could be situations in which firefighters found themselves legally at risk. So for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
	"(1A) In section 18 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members), after subsection (3G) insert—
	"(3H) A fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies shall be treated as a county council for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section.""

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. These amendments are also prompted by Welsh authorities. They allow for allowances to members of the fire and rescue authorities to be pensionable. They are enabling powers and do not commit the Government or the National Assembly for Wales to introducing pensions. Clearly, more detailed regulations would be needed to deal with the point about double counting that was mentioned in an earlier debate.
	The amendment was resisted in Grand Committee on the basis that the Government are reviewing members' allowances later this year and that if the review proposes a change it could be dealt with by subsequent legislation. I said then that enabling provisions in the Bill would mean that we would not have to wait for another legislative opportunity.
	There is also a point on devolution. It may be that the National Assembly for Wales and the UK Government reach different answers to the question of whether members of fire and rescue authorities should receive pensions. Unless the Bill includes an enabling power, the National Assembly is denied the choice given by the Local Government Act 2000 for councillors in England. I know how committed the Government are to devolution so I am sure that they will understand that argument. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Committee. We will review members' allowances in general later in the year and allowances for members of fire authorities will be considered as part of the review. As the noble Baroness was speaking, my noble friend checked with me. I am a bit surprised to learn that the legislative change would require primary legislation and not an order. I suspect that there is a crossover with police authority allowances and other matters. The matter is obviously much more fundamental than I had thought, particularly as regards the inclusion of pensions.
	I am going to have to retreat with that answer, which is exactly the same as the one given in Committee. However, I had not appreciated that primary legislation would be needed. I cannot give a commitment at this time. At the moment, we have no plans to make a change. However, a review is under way, and these allowances will be a part of that. We will need to take the views of all the stakeholders concerned. This is not a five-minute task. I am sorry that I am not able to give a more helpful response.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I am not seeking an answer about the outcome of the review. I am simply trying to smooth the way. As the legislative timetable gets so clogged at this time of year, one is persuaded of the value of enabling legislation. However, having made the point and tried to help out, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 47, line 14, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1750)
	91A (1) Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit the words "The Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41), Sections 26 and 27A".
	(3) At the end, add "Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, Sections 33 to 35"."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment also concerns pensions, as does Amendment No. 56, which is on much the same point. That amendment is not grouped with this one, but that is my fault.
	Amendment No. 53 ensures that the Scottish Executive have the functions under the Bill in respect of pensions for employees of Scottish fire authorities. As my notes seem to have negatives in the wrong places, perhaps I will not continue this paragraph.
	If the Bill confers functions with regard to pensions in Wales directly on the Assembly, it should protect the current devolution of that responsibility in respect of Scotland by amending the order referred to in the amendment. The Bill can achieve the same outcomes for Scotland and Wales. I suggest saving a little parliamentary time by not having to approve an order. That is a bit cheeky because I received my briefing from Wales and I have not been briefed by the Scots.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was linking Amendment No. 56 with Amendment No. 53; will she speak to it separately?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was going to speak to it separately but, with the leave of the House, I could speak to it now.
	The proposed functions for the Assembly with respect to pensions mark a significant development in the devolution settlement for Wales. Why that should happen has not, I am told, been the subject of reasoned argument by the Government; nor have the implications that it would have for other public service pensions schemes been considered. Currently, the Assembly has no functions under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in respect of the local government pension scheme, under Section 9 in respect of teachers' pension schemes or under Sections 10 or 104 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in respect of the NHS pension scheme. I am told that the Bill's proposals represent the first occasion on which the Assembly will have functions in respect of pensions in the public sector. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall give the noble Baroness a considered reply to Amendments Nos. 53 and 56, which are connected. Amendment No. 53 seeks to make a consequential amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, so that the reference in it to the "Fire Services Act 1947" is updated, to reflect the new legislation.
	Ensuring that all pieces of secondary legislation which make reference to the 1947 Act, or indeed other terms such as "fire brigade", are revised is a considerable task—there are hundreds of such references to be amended. We therefore plan to do that as a single exercise, after the Bill has received Royal Assent, by means of an order under Clause 52. That will allow us to ensure that we capture all out-dated references in secondary legislation and thoroughly update the statute book.
	Amendment No. 56 returns us to an issue raised in Grand Committee. The question of how pensions matters should be dealt with in Wales has been returned to again. The amendment would deny the National Assembly of Wales the power to make secondary legislation on pensions that the Scottish Executive currently enjoys in relation to the 1947 Act, and which it is our intention to give it, using a transfer of functions order, in relation to secondary legislation on pensions under this Bill.
	From the debates so far on this issue, it seems that the concern is not that we are proposing to devolve pensions powers under the Bill to the National Assembly for Wales. The concern appears to be rather that more power should not be devolved to Wales than is devolved to Scotland. I can reassure the House on this matter. It is government policy to devolve to Wales policy matters currently reserved to the UK government in respect of the fire and rescue services. In drafting the provisions of this Bill, we have tried to replicate the outcome in Scotland, but not necessarily the method of achieving that outcome. Without going into the minutiae of detail, that basically answers the substantive question raised by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I thank the Minister for the explanation. I am sure that we all look forward to the order to which he referred in connection with the relevant amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 54 [Pre-commencement consultation]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 26, line 14, after "force" insert "but after this Act has received Royal Assent"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I believe that this is the last amendment that we shall discuss tonight. I shall speak as quickly as I can. As I said in Committee, Clause 54 legitimises the consultation that takes place before the relevant provisions of the Bill come into force. The purpose of Amendment No. 55 is clear: it seeks to prevent the situation whereby consultation and discussion that took place on the Bill last year or the year before can be used in support of a claim that adequate consultation has taken place in respect of some matter dealt with by the Bill.
	We reluctantly concede the principle of pre-commencement consultation in the interests of speeding up matters, but it must take place after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The context in which it takes place will be relevant to the responses received and the consultees must be able to see that context. That means that the Act of Parliament must be completed even if the relevant sections have not commenced.
	As I said previously, I think that this is an important amendment because it aims to address the worrying trend of government pre-emption in legislation. I recognise the point made by the Minister that there could be disruption in terms of fire and rescue authorities' business and operational planning if this amendment were to be adopted. However, democratic processes are not adopted because they are the most efficient but because they are the most legitimate. That legitimacy hangs on the proper sequencing of legislative activity and not permitting the Government to enact policy on the basis that it will inevitably pass through the Houses of Parliament unamended.
	This is not an issue confined to this Bill in particular but I think that we need to address what is a creeping problem of the executive towards the legislative supremacy of Parliament. My concern is not particularly aimed at this Government—but they just happen to be in office at the moment—though there can be no doubt that we saw this kind of pre-emption on the Planning Bill, as well as in the fire White Paper for the setting up of regional management boards by 1 April 2004. For the purposes of this amendment, and from a democratic point of view, it is only right that proper consultation be carried out once the relevant legislation has become law. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. It is an interesting point. I shall certainly obtain further betters and particulars from my learned friends on the matter. I should like to have provided examples where consultation has taken place on legislation, or the effect of it, before it received Royal Assent. I am sure that that must have happened under previous governments. I am not saying that that is necessarily a good thing. I do not believe that it is a question of usurping Parliament for reasons that I shall explain. However, I would be more comfortable if I had a couple of examples of the matter from recent years and prior to 1997.
	We believe it is essential that we obtain the results of consultation on this Bill before Royal Assent and are able to take account of them, for example in relation to the core duties under Clause 9, the national framework and charging. The adoption of the amendment would mean that we would have to start that all over again. There is a problem here. Even if consultation began on the date of Royal Assent, we would have to operate the Cabinet Office guidelines that recommend a three-month period as a minimum. You have to have really good reasons to short-cut that three-month period. There then must be time to consider the responses before laying the commencement order which must lie before the House for a period before having effect. That could result in serious delays to the modernisation process in the fire and rescue services.
	I freely admit that the Government are really keen to secure Royal Assent for the Bill before the Summer Recess. I am very grateful to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties as that could not be achieved without their co-operation. They have facilitated today's debate. I hope that that will also be the case on Third Reading next week. I refer to the implications of the amendment's adoption for the setting of budgets and starting all over again as regards operational capabilities, local authorities fixing their budgets, council tax levels and public safety issues. I make a special case for this Bill in the context of reforming the fire and rescue services. It is important as part of the overall timetable to try to obtain Royal Assent before the Summer Recess rather than in October. I know that my right honourable friends Nick Raynsford and the Deputy Prime Minister were mortified, and we explained to them that the Lords would try to help, which is what we have tried to do.
	I make a special case in this instance but, on the general principle—the noble Baroness went outside the Bill and referred to that—I shall make some further inquiries. If possible, I shall write to noble Lords. I would be happier if there were precedents going back prior to 1997.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I could make a guess.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend suggests a few relevant issues—poll tax, the GLC abolition Bill—but I will not be run down the road by him. As a general principle, the point raised is extremely valid and deserves a considered response.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I very carefully said that my concern was not particularly aimed at this Government, because I thought that some noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—might pop up with something controversial. I shall not take the matter any further today. We already have the promise of further consultation on the framework, which is an important part of the Bill. However, as the Minister recognised, perhaps we might start adopting the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 60 [Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 27, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.